Type in search terms.
APPENDIX S: CULTURAL HERITAGE REPORT
Webequie Supply Road Project
Webequie First Nation
March 2022 (updated March 2024, July 2024, and
October 2024)
AtkinsRéalis
Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions
and Preliminary Impact Assessment Webequie Supply Road
Webequie First Nation and District of Kenora, Ontario
Draft Report
AtkinsRéalis Canada Inc. 191 The West Mall Toronto, ON M9C 5K8
Archaeological Services Inc. File: 18CH-154
March 2022 (updated March 2024, July 2024, and October 2024)
Executive Summary
Archaeological Services Inc. (A.S.I.) was contracted by AtkinsRéalis Canada Inc., on behalf of Webequie First Nation, to conduct a Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment (Cultural Heritage Report) as part of the Webequie Supply Road Project, in Webequie First Nation and the District of Kenora, Ontario. Webequie First Nation is proposing the development of an all- season road between the community and the Ring of Fire mineral deposit area. It will serve as a supply road to facilitate the year-round movement of supplies, materials, and people from the Webequie airport to existing mineral exploration activities and proposed future mine developments in the McFaulds Lake area.
While the initial purpose of the road is to connect Webequie First Nation to the proposed Ring of Fire area, in the future, other power transmission and broadband infrastructure may also be accommodated by the road corridor. The purpose of the Cultural Heritage Report is to present an inventory of known and potential Built Heritage Resources (B.H.R.s) and Cultural Heritage Landscapes (C.H.L.s), including culturally important Indigenous sites and areas.
The proposed project corridor is located in northwestern Ontario, with the Webequie First Nation being located approximately 525 kilometres northeast of Thunder Bay. The corridor is to extend southeastward for 51 kilometres from the Webequie First Nation community, before turning eastward for 56 kilometres and terminating at the Ring of Fire mineral deposit area near McFaulds Lake. A total of 17 kilometres of the proposed project corridor is within Webequie First Nation Reserve Lands under federal jurisdiction. The remainder of the project corridor is located on unsurveyed Ontario Crown Lands. The total length of the proposed project corridor is approximately 107 kilometres. The proposed road right-of-way will necessitate constructing bridges over major waterbody crossings including, from east to west, Winisk Lake, Unnamed Tributary of Winisk River, and Muketei River. A variety of culvert types and sizes will also be placed to convey more minor watercourses under the proposed Supply Road. The project will also include supportive infrastructure such as aggregate pits/quarries, construction
camps, and other supportive site facilities located as close as possible to the supply road corridor.
The following report consists of a Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment, which includes an inventory of known and potential B.H.R.s and C.H.L.s, based on a review of existing heritage inventories, background research, and review of available Indigenous Knowledge (I.K.) studies.
A description of existing conditions is provided and is based on a review of project-related documents and input from Webequie First Nation through the
Webequie First Nation Traditional Land and Resource Use Study for the Webequie Service Road, and associated Validation Sessions. The report also includes a Preliminary Impact Assessment.
During the cultural heritage assessment process, a property or site is identified as a potential B.H.R. or C.H.L. based on research, the Ministry screening tool, and professional expertise and best practice. Various inputs such as historical research, review of historic site databases, site assessments, and/or engagement with local and/or Indigenous communities can assist in this process of initial identification. Given the size and geographical location of the study area, and the long-standing Indigenous connections and uses of the study area lands, appropriate incorporation of I.K. forms a most integral source of input and knowledge-sharing necessary for the identification of known or potential cultural heritage resources in this context. Appropriate incorporation of I.K. includes community validation, which is a process for the community and its knowledge holders to verify the accuracy, completeness and sensitivity of the I.K. that has been collected for a project.
Culturally significant Indigenous sites reflect the enduring relationship between Indigenous peoples and the land that is sustained through spatial practices, performances and traditions (Prosper, 2007). The cultural significance comes from the intangible aspects of culture—living heritage as it is often referred to—which is maintained through a relationship with the land. As Aird and Fox explain,
Indigenous cultural heritage landscapes “are reflections of the living heritage
created and nurtured there through practice, in the ways that people care for, protect, travel across, harvest, pray, teach and learn on the land” (Aird & Fox, 2020). It is through these land-based practices—such as storytelling and oral histories embedded in a place, seasonal use of traditional hunting and fishing grounds, resource harvesting, fire regimes, ecosystem management, singing and dancing—that a cultural heritage landscape has heritage value. Using the land as a mnemonic or a book, these intangible pieces of heritage that sustain Indigenous culture, tradition, identity, and well-being are passed from one generation to another. Key to an Indigenous cultural heritage landscape is a continued connection between humans and place. Landscapes are lived and practiced and continue to shape and be shaped by Indigenous cultures. Maintaining a relationship with the land is deeply intertwined with Indigenous peoples’ well- being, health, language, and ways of life. It is critical that Indigenous communities be actively engaged in meaningful ways in the conservation and management of Indigenous built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes.
The results of background historical research indicate a study area with a terrain dominated by woodlands, wetlands, and watercourses with a human history dating back millennia. Traditional land and resource uses including hunting, fishing, and gathering continue into the twenty-first century by the members Webequie First Nation and other area First Nations. Background research, including a review of federal, provincial, and registers, inventories, and databases, review of historical mapping and secondary sources, and review of available and shared I.K. studies led to the identification of three C.H.L.s by A.S.I. Each C.H.L. includes sites and areas that are located within and/or intersect with the Local Study Area, many of which overlap. The C.H.Ls. are delineated based on types of sites and areas identified by Webequie First Nation1 as being important to their community, both historically and today. The study area is located within a
1 With the exception of one historical travel route (see C.H.L. 1), all identified sites and areas forming the C.H.L.s were identified by members of Webequie First Nation. Other First Nations may identify additional areas and sites of significance as the Webequie Supply Road project progresses.
landscape of intersecting and interconnected travel routes, harvesting areas and sites, and cultural, spiritual and ceremonial areas and sites.
These areas and sites are generally located with 50 kilometres of the Webequie First Nation community. They are individually mapped and may be considered interrelated C.H.L. units that together form part of a larger Webequie First Nation cultural landscape. The identified areas and sites are physically, historically, contextually, and/or spiritually associated with land use patterns in the District of Kenora and more specifically representative of the ongoing Indigenous traditional practices and settlement patterns of the Webequie First Nation and surrounding area.
As similar types of significant sites and areas will likely be affected by similar types of potential impacts as a result of the proposed Webequie Supply Road, and will require similar mitigative responses, this approach allows for the easier inclusion of additional areas and sites of significance that may be identified by Webequie First Nation or other First Nations as the Webequie Supply Road project progresses.
As noted in the Webequie First Nation I.K. Study, the entire landscape setting within which the proposed Webequie Supply Road is located is of significance to Webequie First Nation: “Study participants stated that “everywhere” surrounding the Webequie reserve and the proposed route for the Webequie Supply Road was important to them and their families for T.L.R.U. [traditional land and resource
use]. The community’s hunting, trapping, fishing and habitation areas are tied to specific family groups and clans. These lands were passed down from generation to generation through paternal lines” (Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2024b, p. 47).
Additionally, Webequie First Nation describes the Ring of Fire region as “the lungs of the earth” which holds an important spiritual value: “disturbing this area
without stewardship input and knowledge will cause it to become unstable.”
(Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2024b, p. 80).
Based on the results of this assessment, the following recommendations have been developed:
- Further research and engagement with Webequie First Nation and other affected First Nations may provide additional information about the
C.H.L.s currently identified in this report, their composite sites and areas of significance, and their potential cultural heritage value. Additional
C.H.L.s and/or B.H.R.s may also be identified as the project progresses. This information may provide further insights on potential direct and indirect adverse impacts which can better inform the development of appropriate mitigation measures.
Mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to, avoidance, alternative design or construction approaches, monitoring, protection, relocation, remedial landscaping, and documentation, where appropriate. In addition, the following potential mitigation measures have been suggested by Webequie First Nation Elders as part of the Webequie First Nation I.K. Study:
- “One Elder recommended the medicines along the route be
identified before construction begins (Webequie August
2024 sessions)” (Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2024b, p. 70).
- “Participants recommended the use of checkpoints along the roadway to clean equipment and monitor for invasive species, especially regarding micro-organisms and invasive plants carried on boat motors and snowmobiles (Webequie August 2024 sessions)” (Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2024b, p. 70).
- “These sacred areas could be protected by not building the road2, the Elder suggested. However, alternative mitigations might include having spiritual monitors who were trained by Elders in the community on what sites or areas they should
2 This suggestion was provided in relation to the area near Aggregate Source Area 4, which is
identified by the Elder as a “very sacred area”.
monitor (Webequie August 2024 sessions)” (Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2024b, p. 86).
Development of appropriate mitigation measures may require additional studies, such as Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports and/or feature- specific Heritage Impact Assessment reports. In this regard, Webequie First Nation Elders and Knowledge Holders, along with provincial guidelines, should be consulted for advice on scope, methodology and approach, and further heritage work should be undertaken as necessary.
- Construction activities and staging should be suitably planned and undertaken to avoid impacts to identified C.H.L.s.
- Should future work require an expansion of the study area then a qualified heritage consultant should be contacted to evaluate the impact of the proposed work on potential heritage resources.
- This draft Cultural Heritage Report should be submitted to the Webequie First Nation for review and comment, and to any stakeholders with an interest in the cultural heritage of this project. The draft Cultural Heritage Report should also be submitted to the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism for review and comment.
Report Accessibility Features
This report has been formatted to meet the Information and Communications Standards under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (A.O.D.A.). Features of this report which enhance accessibility include headings, font size and colour, alternative text provided for images, and the use of periods within acronyms. Given this is a technical report, there may be instances where additional accommodation is required in order for readers to access the report’s information. If additional accommodation is required, please contact Annie Veilleux, Manager of the Cultural Heritage Division at Archaeological Services Inc., by email at aveilleux@asiheritage.ca or by phone 416-966-1069 ext. 255.
Project Personnel
- Senior Project Manager: Annie Veilleux, M.A. C.A.H.P., Senior Cultural Heritage Specialist, Manager – Cultural Heritage Division
- Senior Technical Advisor: Martin Cooper, M.A., Senior Archaeologist, Senior Associate
- Project Coordinator: Katrina Thach, B.A. (Hon), Associate Archaeologist, Division Coordinator – Environmental Assessment Division
- Report Production: Michael Wilcox, P.h.D., Historian – Cultural Heritage Division
- John Sleath, M.A., Cultural Heritage Specialist, Project Manager – Cultural Heritage Division
- Annie Veilleux
- Graphics Production: Peter Bikoulis, P.h.D., Archaeologist, Geomatics Technician – Operations Division
- Carolyn Nettleton, B.A., Archaeologist, Geomatics Technician – Operations Division
- Report Reviewer(s): Martin Cooper
- Annie Veilleux
- Rebecca Sciarra, M.A., C.A.H.P., Partner, Director – Cultural Heritage Division
Qualified Persons Involved in the Project
Annie Veilleux, M.A., C.A.H.P.
Senior Cultural Heritage Specialist, Manager – Cultural Heritage Division
The Senior Project Manager for this Cultural Heritage Report is Annie Veilleux (M.A., C.A.H.P.), who is a Senior Cultural Heritage Specialist and Manager of the Cultural Heritage Division. She was responsible for: overall project scoping and approach; development and confirmation of technical findings and study recommendations; application of relevant standards, guidelines and regulations; and implementation of quality control procedures. Annie is academically trained in the fields of cultural landscape theory, history, archaeology, and collections management and has over 15 years of experience in the field of cultural heritage resource management. This work has focused on the identification and evaluation of cultural heritage resources, both above and below ground. Annie has managed and conducted numerous built heritage and cultural heritage landscape assessments, heritage recordings and evaluations, and heritage impact assessments as required for Environmental Assessments and Planning projects throughout the Province of Ontario. Annie has extensive experience leading and conducting research for large-scale heritage planning studies, heritage interpretation programs, and projects requiring comprehensive public and Indigenous engagement programs. She is fully bilingual in English and French and has served as a French language liaison on behalf of Archaeological Services Inc.
Annie is a member of the Ontario Archaeological Society, the National Trust for Canada, I.C.O.M.O.S. Canada, and I.A.P.2 Canada. She is also a professional member in good standing of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals.
Martin Cooper, M.A.
Senior Archaeologist, Senior Associate
The Senior Technical Advisor for this Cultural Heritage Report is Martin Cooper (M.A.), who is a Senior Archaeologist and Senior Associate with A.S.I. He was responsible for overall project scoping and approach, development and
community histories, preparing and contributing to research, and technical reporting.
Martin Cooper is a professional archaeologist and has been involved in archaeology in Ontario for over forty years. He received his honours B.A. in Anthropology at the University of Western Ontario and his M.A. at the University of Toronto. Martin has served as Project Director on hundreds of single and multi- phased assessments. He has directed A.S.I.’s archaeological assessments in Northern Ontario including the LaVase Portage Archaeological Project, a component of Heritage North for the City of North Bay and more recently the French Portage project for Quetico Provincial Park.
Martin has directed several studies related to the development of models of traditional native use and precontact archaeological site potential including the Master Plan of Heritage Resources for the Temagami Planning District and for the Kawartha Highlands Signature Site for the Ministry of Natural Resources. He was Project Archaeologist for the oral history and archaeological survey components of the Master Plan of Heritage Resources for Howland Township, Sheguiandah First Nation and the Ojibways of Sucker Creek on Manitoulin Island. Mr. Cooper is also involved in numerous projects relating to Land Claims and First Nations consultation and was an expert witness for the Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug in their case with Platinex.
John Sleath, M.A.
Cultural Heritage Specialist, Project Manager – Cultural Heritage Division
The Project Manager for this Cultural Heritage Report is John Sleath (M.A.), who is a Cultural Heritage Specialist and Project Manager within the Cultural Heritage Division with A.S.I. He was responsible for the day-to-day management activities, including scoping of research activities and site surveys and drafting of study findings and recommendations. John has worked in a variety of contexts within the field of cultural heritage resource management for the past 14 years as an archaeologist and as a cultural heritage professional. An exposure to both land-
assessments has provided John with a holistic understanding of heritage in a variety of contexts. In 2015 John began working in the Cultural Heritage Division researching and preparing a multitude of cultural heritage assessment reports and for which he was responsible for a variety of tasks including: completing archival research, investigating built heritage and cultural heritage landscapes, report preparation, historical map regression, and municipal consultation. Since 2018 John has been a project manager responsible for a variety of tasks required for successful project completion. This work has allowed John to engage with stakeholders from the public and private sector, as well as representatives from local municipal planning departments and museums. John has conducted hundreds of cultural heritage assessments across Ontario, with a focus on transit and rail corridor infrastructure including bridges and culverts.
Michael Wilcox, P.h.D.
Historian – Cultural Heritage Division
The primary report writer for this report is Michael Wilcox (P.h.D., History), who is a historian within the Cultural Heritage Division. He was responsible for preparing and contributing to background historical research, reviewing existing heritage inventories, and technical reporting for this project. His current responsibilities focus on identifying and researching historical documents as well as background research, assessment, and evaluation of built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes in Ontario. He has over a decade of combined academic and workplace experience in conducting historical research and crafting reports, presentations, articles, films, and lectures on a wide range of Canadian history topics. Michael is a member of the Indigenous Relations Working Group at A.S.I.
Built Heritage Resource (B.H.R.)
Glossary
Definition: “…a building, structure, monument, installation or any manufactured or constructed part or remnant that contributes to a property’s cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community, including an Indigenous community” (Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, 2024, p. 40).
Cultural Heritage Landscape (C.H.L.)
Definition: “…a defined geographical area that may have been modified by human activity and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community, including an Indigenous community. The area may include features such as buildings, structures, spaces, views, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or
association”(Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, 2024, p. 41).
Impact
Definition: Includes negative and positive, direct and indirect effects to an identified built heritage resource and cultural heritage landscape. Direct impacts include destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes or features and/or unsympathetic or incompatible alterations to an identified resource. Indirect impacts include, but are not limited to, creation of shadows, isolation of heritage attributes, direct or indirect obstruction of significant views, change in land use, land disturbances (Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism, 2006b). Indirect impacts also include potential vibration impacts (See Section 2.6 for complete definition and discussion of potential impacts).
Indigenous Knowledge
Definition: Indigenous (or Traditional) Knowledge is a holistic body of knowledge containing information and records collected by Indigenous Communities that encompasses cultural, spiritual, historical, and community significance to its members. Much of this knowledge may have been passed on from generation to generation. Each community will have its own approach to collecting, recording, sharing and using this knowledge (Webequie First Nation, 2019b, p. 60–61).
Known Built Heritage Resource or Cultural Heritage Landscape
Definition: A known built heritage resource or cultural heritage landscape is a property that has recognized cultural heritage value or interest. This can include a property listed on a Municipal Heritage Register, designated under Part IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act, or protected by a heritage agreement, covenant or easement, protected by the Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act or the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, identified as a Federal Heritage Building, or located within a U.N.E.S.C.O. World Heritage Site (Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism, 2022).
Local Study Area
Definition: The Local Study Area is defined as the one-kilometre buffer from the Webequie Supply Road footprint, or right-of-way boundary of the preliminary recommended preferred route, and 500-metre buffer from the footprint of temporary or permanent supportive infrastructure.
Mitigation
Definition: Mitigation is the process of lessening or negating anticipated adverse impacts to Built Heritage Resources or Cultural Heritage Landscapes and may include, but are not limited to, such actions as avoidance, monitoring, protection, relocation, remedial landscaping, and documentation of the cultural heritage landscape and/or built heritage resource if to be demolished or relocated (Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism, 2006a).
Potential Built Heritage Resource or Cultural Heritage Landscape
Definition: A potential built heritage resource or cultural heritage landscape is a property that has the potential for cultural heritage value or interest. This can include properties/project area that contain a parcel of land that is the subject of a commemorative or interpretive plaque, is adjacent to a known burial site and/or cemetery, is in a Canadian Heritage River Watershed, or contains buildings or structures that are 40 or more years old (Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism, 2022).
Regional Study Area
Definition: The Regional Study Area is a five-kilometre buffer from the L.S.A.
Significant
Definition: With regard to cultural heritage and archaeology resources, significant means “resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest. Processes and criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest are established by the Province under the authority of the Ontario Heritage Act” (Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, 2024, p. 52).
Vibration Zone of Influence
Definition: Area within a 50-metre buffer of construction-related activities in which there is potential to affect an identified built heritage resource or cultural heritage landscape. A 50-metre buffer is applied in the absence of a project- specific defined vibration zone of influence based on existing secondary source literature (Carman et al., 2012; Crispino & D’Apuzzo, 2001; P. Ellis, 1987; Rainer, 1982; Wiss, 1981). This buffer accommodates the additional threat from collisions with heavy machinery or subsidence (Randl, 2001).
Table of Contents
Report Accessibility Features 7
Qualified Persons Involved in the Project 9
Cultural Heritage Landscapes 80
Appendix A: Webequie Supply Road Location of Project
Appendix B: Webequie Supply Road Project – Indigenous Knowledge Collection and Validation Approach 117
List of Tables
Table 1: Inventory of Known and Potential Cultural Heritage Landscapes within the Study Area 82
Figure 1: Location of the Webequie Supply Road Cultural Heritage Study Area (Base Map: ©OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons- Share Alike License (C.C.-By-S.A.) 22
Figure 2: The study area overlaid on the 1910 Geological Survey of Canada Map (Department of Mines, 1910) 67
Figure 3: The study area overlaid on the Rand McNally Map of Northern Ontario, 1924 (Rand McNally & Co., 1924) 68
Figure 4: The study area overlaid on the 1978 N.T.S. Sheet 43D/14 and 43E/3 (Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, 1978) 69
Figure 5: Location of Travel Routes (C.H.L. 1) in the study area. 88
Figure 6: Location of trapping and hunting areas and sites which form part of the Harvesting Areas and Sites C.H.L. (C.H.L. 2) in the study area 89
Figure 7: Location of fishing areas and sites which form part of the Harvesting Areas and Sites C.H.L. (C.H.L. 2) in the study area 90
Figure 8: Location of various plant and spring water harvesting areas and sites which form part of the Harvesting Areas and Sites C.H.L. (C.H.L. 2) in the study area. 91
Figure 9: Location of habitation sites that support harvesting activities which forms part of the Harvesting Areas and Sites C.H.L. (C.H.L. 2) in the study area. 92
Figure 10: Location of culturally significant areas and sites which form part of the Cultural, Spiritual and Ceremonial Areas and Sites C.H.L. (C.H.L. 3) in the study area. 93
1.0 Introduction
Archaeological Services Inc. (A.S.I.) was contracted by AtkinsRéalis Canada Inc. (AtkinsRéalis), on behalf of Webequie First Nation, to conduct a Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment (Cultural Heritage Report) as part of the Webequie Supply Road Project (the project), in Webequie First Nation and the District of Kenora, Ontario. The purpose of the Cultural Heritage Report is to present an inventory of known and potential Built Heritage Resources (B.H.R.s) and Cultural Heritage Landscapes (C.H.L.s), including culturally important Indigenous sites and areas, and provide a preliminary impact assessment.
1.1 Project Overview
Webequie First Nation is proposing the development of an all-season road between the community and the Ring of Fire mineral deposit area. It will serve as a supply road to facilitate the year-round movement of supplies, materials, and people from the Webequie First Nation and its airport to existing mineral exploration activities and proposed future mine developments in the McFaulds Lake area (also referred to as the Ring of Fire).
The proposed project corridor is located in northwestern Ontario, with the Webequie First Nation being located approximately 525 kilometres northeast of Thunder Bay. The corridor is to extend southeastward for 51 kilometres from the Webequie First Nation community, before turning eastward for 56 kilometres and terminating at the Ring of Fire mineral deposit area near McFaulds Lake. A total of 17 kilometres of the proposed project corridor sits within Webequie First Nation Reserve Lands under federal jurisdiction. The remainder of the project corridor sits on unsurveyed Ontario Crown Lands.
The Webequie Supply Road is a proposed two-lane all-season road within a cleared right-of-way of 35 m in width and is 107 km in length. The proposed road right-of-way will necessitate constructing bridges over major waterbody crossings
including, from east to west, Winisk Lake, Unnamed Tributary of Winisk River, and Muketei River, and a variety of culvert types and sizes will also be placed to convey more minor watercourses under the proposed Supply Road. The project will also include supportive infrastructure such as aggregate pits/quarries, construction camps, and other supportive site facilities located as close as possible to the supply road corridor. A map showing the location of individual project components is found in Appendix A.
1.2 Description of Study Area
The Cultural Heritage Report study area (Figure 1) includes: proposed Webequie Supply Road footprint, or right-of-way boundary of the preliminary recommended preferred route, and the footprint of temporary or permanent supportive infrastructure; the Local Study Area (L.S.A.) which is a one-kilometre buffer from the proposed Webequie Supply Road footprint, or right-of-way boundary of the preliminary recommended preferred route, and 500-metre buffer from the footprint of temporary or permanent supportive infrastructure; and the Regional Study Area (R.S.A.), which is a five-kilometre buffer from the L.S.A. Background information and historical land use research was conducted for the larger R.S.A., while the assessment of known or potential B.H.R.s and C.H.L.s was conducted within the more refined L.S.A. This L.S.A. has been defined as inclusive of those lands that may contain B.H.R.s or C.H.L.s that may be subject to direct or indirect impacts as a result of the proposed undertaking. Lands within the study area are located within the traditional territory of Webequie First Nation and within provincial crown lands in the District of Kenora.
Figure 1: Location of the Webequie Supply Road Cultural Heritage Study Area (Base Map: ©OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (C.C.-By-S.A.)
ASI
1.3 Study Limitations
This Cultural Heritage Report is not intended as a comprehensive representation of known or potential B.H.R.s and C.H.L.s of significance to Webequie First Nation and other surrounding First Nations. The information contained in this report is based on a review of relevant existing reports and studies completed by Webequie First Nation and other First Nations containing relevant information related to the identification of cultural heritage resources, such as Indigenous Knowledge (I.K.) and Traditional Land and Resource Use (T.L.R.U.) Studies for the Webequie Supply Road project. As noted in the Webequie First Nation I.K. Study for this project, “the spatial information presented is limited by the number of study participants and the absence of additional locations in this report should not be construed as a lack of use by or importance to Webequie First Nation” (Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2024b, p. iv).
It should also be noted that, due to confidentiality constraints and the need to respect the wishes of potentially affected Indigenous communities with regard to sharing information on land use within the study area, it may not be possible to fully illustrate the location or bounds of a number of features and sensitivities, such as sacred sites, Indigenous traditional territories, individual camps/cabins, species at risk observations and government-related areas (e.g., trapline licenses) (Webequie First Nation, 2020b, p. 76).
2.0 Methodology
The following sections provide a summary of regulatory requirements and municipal and regional heritage policies that guide this cultural heritage assessment. In addition, an overview of the process undertaken to identify known and potential built heritage resources (B.H.R.s) and cultural heritage landscapes (C.H.L.s) is provided, along with a description of how the preliminary impact assessment will be undertaken.
2.1 Regulatory Requirements
The Ontario Heritage Act (O.H.A.) (Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. c. O.18, [as Amended in 2023], 1990) is the primary piece of legislation that determines
policies, priorities and programs for the conservation of Ontario’s heritage. There are many other provincial acts, regulations and policies governing land use planning and resource development that support heritage conservation, including:
- The Planning Act (Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, 1990), which states
that “conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural,
historical, archaeological or scientific interest” is a “matter of provincial
interest”. The Provincial Planning Statement (P.P.S.), (Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, 2024) issued under the Planning Act, links heritage conservation to long-term economic prosperity and requires municipalities and the Crown to conserve protected heritage property, which may contain
B.H.R.s and C.H.L.s. The P.P.S. also states that “Planning authorities shall engage early with Indigenous communities and ensure their interests are considered when identifying, protecting and managing archaeological resources, built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes.” (4.6.5)
- The Environmental Assessment Act (Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.O. c. E.18, 1990), which defines “environment” to include cultural conditions that influence the life of humans or a community. Cultural heritage
resources, which includes archaeological resources, B.H.R.s and C.H.L.s, are important components of those cultural conditions.
The Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (hereafter “The Ministry”) is charged under Section 2.0 of the O.H.A. with the responsibility to determine policies, priorities, and programs for the conservation, protection, and preservation of the heritage of Ontario. As the Webequie Supply Road study area consists largely of provincial Crown land, Part III.1 Standards and Guidelines for Provincial Heritage Properties of the O.H.A. applies. The Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties (Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism, 2010) (hereinafter “Standards and Guidelines”) apply to properties the Government of Ontario owns or controls that have “cultural heritage value or interest” (C.H.V.I.). The Standards and Guidelines provide a series of guidelines that apply to provincial heritage properties in the areas of identification and evaluation; protection; maintenance; use; and disposal. For the purpose of this report, the Standards and Guidelines provide points of reference to aid in determining potential heritage significance in the identification of B.H.R.s and C.H.L.s. and are regarded as best practice for guiding heritage assessments and ensure that additional identification and mitigation measures are considered.
The Technical Guidance for Assessing Physical and Cultural Heritage or any Structure, Site or Thing is a document that supported the implementation of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. In particular, it supported the
Act’s provisions “related to the effects of any changes to the environment on physical and cultural heritage or on any structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural significance. It provide[d] preliminary guidance on how to conduct the assessment when the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (the Agency) [was] the responsible authority” (Technical Guidance for Assessing Physical and Cultural Heritage or Any Structure, Site or Thing, 2015). It is still a useful guidance document.
The Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines: Webequie Supply Road Project (T.I.S.G.), developed as part of the federal impact assessment process, were
reviewed as part of this study. The T.I.S.G. provide direction and requirements for the proponent in preparing the Impact Statement for the Webequie Supply Road Project (Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, 2020). The Webequie Supply Road Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference (Webequie First Nation, 2020b) were also reviewed. The Terms of Reference establishes the framework for the planning and decision-making process during the Environmental Assessment (E.A.).
2.2 Local/Municipal/Regional Heritage Policies and Plans
The study area is primarily located in unsurveyed territory within the District of Kenora in northwestern Ontario. However, the western most part of the study area is located within the Webequie First Nation Reserve. Policies relating to cultural heritage resources were reviewed from the following sources:
- Webequie First Nation On-reserve Land Use Plan (May 31, 2019), which provides information and guidance for community land use and development projects (Webequie First Nation, 2019a). Section 4.2 of the Land Use Plan identifies a number of “Known Culturally Sensitive Areas” within the boundary of the Webequie First Nation reserve (see Section 5.1.1 below for more information).
- Draft Webequie First Nation Community Based Land Use Plan, v. 4.2 (March 2019) (C.B.L.U.P.), prepared by Webequie First Nation and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (2019). Several of the land use zones described in the C.B.L.U.P. overlap with portions of the Local Study Area (L.S.A.). The C.B.L.U.P. provides goals and descriptions of land use areas within the proposed Webequie planning area as well as permitted uses/activities. Identified cultural heritage resources or sensitivities identified within the prescribed zoning areas that overlap with the Local Study Area (L.S.A.) are outlined below:
- Zone #2A: Winisk Watershed General Community Livelihood Use Dedicated Protected Area
- This area is 977,147 hectares and its location includes the community of Webequie, Winisk River Provincial Park, and waterways within the Winisk watershed. It is set within both the Canadian Shield and the Hudson Bay Lowlands and is home to a great diversity of plants and animals. The area is used for fishing, hunting, harvesting, and travel routes. It is also home to many cultural sites, including but not limited to historical gathering areas, burial sites, and archaeological sites, as well as natural heritage sites, such as Gneiss Rapids.
- Zone #2B: Kaa-shi-ti-kwayak (Waterway) Dedicated Protected Area
This area is 76,475 hectares and its location includes several waterways, including rivers and channels, within the Winisk watershed, as well as a 500-metre addition of the protected area surrounding the 200-metre boundary of Winisk River Provincial Park. These waterways are “cultural monuments” given their long use as travel routes which connect Webequie people with hunting, fishing, and harvesting areas as well as to neighbouring communities. The travel routes have several significant culturally sensitive areas along their banks, including but not limited to burial sites, ceremonial sites, and camp sites. The rivers and banks are also important from a health perspective in that they provide clean drinking water, are sources of plants and herbs for medicines, and provide habitats for a diverse array of fish and land-based animals.
- Zone 3: Shared Area with Marten Falls and Neskantaga
- This area is 481,290 hectares and its location includes lands wherein Webequie, Marten Falls, and Neskantaga First Nations have a shared interest as it relates to the “Ring of Fire” mineral deposit area (which includes McFaulds Lake and portions of the Attawapiskat River). No particular cultural heritage
resources or sensitivities are outlined. An acknowledgement that consultations between the three Nations should be ongoing related to future land use and development, particularly as it relates to protecting land, air, and water and how all communities’ values and interests will be respected.
- Zone 6: Corridor Enhanced Management Area (E.M.A.)
- This area is 129,102 hectares and it is located south of Webequie. It is a shared area with Neskantaga and Nibinamik First Nations and several travel routes over land and water connect the communities. The area is an important habitat for several animals, such as wolves, wolverines, and moose, and a portion of Misstassin Lake, a natural heritage area, is found within the Corridor E.M.A. Given their use for traditional activities over millennia, various waterways, lakes, rivers, and streams, as well as areas located close to water, are culturally- significant and sensitive sites, including but not limited to the Wahpiidotem (Wapitotem) River, moose habitats and calving sites, and fish habitat and spawning sites.
- Zone 7: Prime Lake Enhanced Management Area (E.M.A.)
- This area is 33,743 hectares is located east of Webequie and is primarily a mix of open and treed fens, bogs, forest, and rock, as well as several lakes and waterways. The area is used for fishing, hunting, and harvesting, and several cabins, campsites, and travel routes are found within the area and are used extensively by residents of Webequie First Nation.
2.3 Identification of Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes
This Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment (Cultural Heritage Report) follows guidelines presented in the
Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties (Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism, 2010) and Criteria for Evaluating Potential for Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes (Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism, 2022). The objective of this report is to present an inventory of known and potential B.H.R.s and C.H.L.s, and to provide a preliminary understanding of known and potential B.H.R.s and C.H.L.s located within areas anticipated to be directly or indirectly impacted by the proposed project.
In the course of the cultural heritage assessment process, all potentially affectedB.H.R.s and C.H.L.s are subject to identification and inventory. Generally, when conducting an identification of B.H.R.s and C.H.L.s within a study area, three stages of research and data collection are undertaken to appropriately establish the potential for and existence of B.H.R.s and C.H.L.s in a geographic area: background research and desktop data collection; field review; and identification. A field review was not conducted as part of this Cultural Heritage Report. Rather, validation of traditional knowledge and land use information and data was undertaken with Webequie First Nation.
Background historical research, which includes consultation of primary and secondary source research and historical mapping, is undertaken to identify early settlement patterns and broad agents or themes of change in a study area. This stage in the data collection process enables the researcher to determine the presence of sensitive heritage areas that correspond to land use and development patterns. To augment data collected during this stage of the research process, federal, provincial, and municipal databases and/or agencies are consulted to obtain information about specific properties or sites that have been previously identified and/or designated as having cultural heritage value.
Typically, in more urban or rural communities, resources identified during these stages of the research process are reflective of particular architectural styles or construction methods, associated with an important person, place, or event, and contribute to the contextual facets of a particular place, neighbourhood, or intersection.
During the cultural heritage assessment process, a property or site is identified as a potential B.H.R. or C.H.L. based on research, the Ministry screening tool, and professional expertise and best practice. Various inputs such as historical research, review of historic site databases, site assessments, and/or engagement with local and/or Indigenous communities can assist in this process of initial identification. Given the size and geographical location of the study area, and the long-standing Indigenous connections and uses of the study area lands, appropriate incorporation of Indigenous knowledge (I.K.) forms a most integral source of input and knowledge-sharing necessary for the identification of known or potential cultural heritage resources in this context. Appropriate incorporation of I.K. includes community validation, which is a process for the community and its knowledge holders to verify the accuracy, completeness and sensitivity of the
I.K. that has been collected for a project (see Section 5.2 and Appendix B for more information on the validation process for the Webequie Supply Road Project).
Culturally significant Indigenous sites reflect the enduring relationship between Indigenous peoples and the land that is sustained through spatial practices, performances and traditions (Prosper, 2007). The cultural significance comes from the intangible aspects of culture—living heritage as it is often referred to—which is maintained through a relationship with the land. As Aird and Fox explain,
Indigenous cultural heritage landscapes “are reflections of the living heritage created and nurtured there through practice, in the ways that people care for, protect, travel across, harvest, pray, teach and learn on the land” (Aird & Fox, 2020). It is through these land-based practices—such as storytelling and oral histories embedded in a place, seasonal use of traditional hunting and fishing grounds, resource harvesting, fire regimes, ecosystem management, singing and dancing—that a cultural heritage landscape has heritage value. Using the land as a mnemonic or a book, these intangible pieces of heritage that sustain Indigenous culture, tradition, identity, and well-being are passed from one generation to another. Key to an Indigenous cultural heritage landscape is a continued connection between humans and place. Landscapes are lived and practiced and continue to shape and be shaped by Indigenous cultures. Maintaining a
relationship with the land is deeply intertwined with Indigenous peoples’ well- being, health, language, and ways of life. It is critical that Indigenous communities be actively engaged in meaningful ways in the conservation and management of Indigenous B.H.R.s and C.H.L.s.
2.4 Background Information Review
To make an identification of previously identified known or potential B.H.R.s and
C.H.L.s within the study area, the following sections present the resources that were consulted as part of this Cultural Heritage Report.
2.4.1 Review of Existing Heritage Inventories
Several resources were consulted in order to identify previously identified B.H.R.s and C.H.L.s within the study area. These resources, reviewed on 14 June 2021, include:
- The Ontario Heritage Act Register (Ontario Heritage Trust, n.d.b);
- The Places of Worship Inventory (Ontario Heritage Trust, n.d.c);
- The inventory of Ontario Heritage Trust easements (Ontario Heritage Trust, n.d.a);
- The Ontario Heritage Trust’s An Inventory of Provincial Plaques Across Ontario: a PDF of Ontario Heritage Trust Plaques and their locations (Ontario Heritage Trust, 2023);
- The Ontario Heritage Trust’s An Inventory of Ontario Heritage Trust-owned properties across Ontario: a PDF of properties owned by the Ontario Heritage Trust (Ontario Heritage Trust, 2019);
- Inventory of known cemeteries/burial sites in the Ontario Genealogical
Society’s online databases (Ontario Genealogical Society, n.d.);
- Canada’s Historic Places website: available online, the searchable register provides information on historic places recognized for their heritage value at the local, provincial, territorial, and national levels (Parks Canada, n.d.a);
- Directory of Federal Heritage Designations: a searchable on-line database that identifies National Historic Sites, National Historic Events, National
Historic People, Heritage Railway Stations, Federal Heritage Buildings, and Heritage Lighthouses (Parks Canada, n.d.b);
- Canadian Heritage River System: a national river conservation program that promotes, protects and enhances the best examples of Canada’s river heritage (Canadian Heritage Rivers Board and Technical Planning Committee, n.d.); and,
- United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (U.N.E.S.C.O.) World Heritage Sites (U.N.E.S.C.O. World Heritage Centre, n.d.).
2.4.2 Review of Previous Heritage Reporting and/or Planning Studies
The following existing heritage reporting and/or planning studies undertaken within parts of the study area were also reviewed:
- Winisk River Provincial Park Management Statement (Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks, 2021), which includes details on archaeological sites and cultural heritage resources within Winisk River Provincial Park, however none of these features are located near the study area.
2.4.3 Agency Information Gathering
The following individuals, groups, and/or organizations were contacted to gather information on known and potential B.H.R.s and C.H.L.s, and active and inactive cemeteries:
- The Ministry (email communication 14 and 22 June 2021). Email correspondence confirmed that there are no additional previously identified heritage resources, including those designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act or any Provincial Heritage Properties, or any concerns regarding the study area.
- The Ontario Heritage Trust (email communication 14 and 18 June 2021). A response indicated that there are no conservation easements, Trust-owned properties, or any listed or designated properties within the study area.
- Ontario Parks, an agency of the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (email communication 14-17 June 2021). A response indicated that there are no known cultural heritage resources within the study area. Historical mapping and a background research report on Winisk River Provincial Park were provided to Archaeological Services Inc. for inclusion in this report.
2.5 Indigenous Knowledge and Community Information Gathering
Indigenous Knowledge (I.K.) is a holistic body of knowledge containing information and records collected by Indigenous Communities that encompasses cultural, spiritual, historical, and community significance to its members. Much of this knowledge may have been passed on from generation to generation, and has evolved and evolves over time. Each community will have its own approach to collecting, recording, sharing and using this knowledge (Webequie First Nation, 2019b, p. 60–61).
Section 5.4 of the “Webequie Supply Road Summary of Project Description” (Webequie First Nation, 2019b, p. 41-44) identifies potential positive and negative cumulative effects of the Project on Indigenous communities. Table 5.3 in the Summary of Project Description identifies the potential effects of the Project on Indigenous communities by “Indigenous Community Activity”. Webequie First Nation, Marten Falls First Nation, Neskantaga First Nation, and Nibinamik First Nation are identified as having “cultural/spiritual/archaeological” sites that may be impacted by the Project. The Table identifies additional Indigenous communities for other Indigenous Community Activities such as hunting, gathering, and fishing.
As part of the Webequie Supply Road project, the Webequie Project Team is collecting existing I.K. that is specific to Webequie First Nation and the Supply Road study area. Additionally, some of the other First Nations are undertaking their own traditional knowledge and land use studies as it relates to this project.
I.K. information shared as part of this project was reviewed to identify known and potential B.H.R.s and C.H.L.s within the study area that may be impacted by the proposed undertaking.
Information shared as part of I.K. that may be of interest for the Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment include but are not limited to:
- Areas valued for traditional uses such as fishing, hunting, and gathering food and medicines;
- Blinds;
- Burial sites;
- Canoe routes;
- Ceremonial uses and sites;
- Historical travel routes;
- Hunting and fishing camps, some of which may have been built over many generations;
- Known culturally sensitive areas;
- Portages;
- Sites for teaching;
- Storied sites;
- Tent frames;
- Trails;
- Traplines; and
- Waterways.
Continued access to those sites is also important.
It should be noted that, due to confidentiality constraints and the need to respect the wishes of potentially affected Indigenous communities with regard to sharing information on land use within the study area, it is not possible to fully illustrate the location or bounds of a number of features and sensitivities, such as Indigenous traditional territories, individual camps/cabins, species at risk observations and government-related areas (e.g., trapline licenses) (Webequie First Nation, 2020b, p. 76).
The following sources of information from three First Nations were provided and reviewed as part of this Cultural Heritage Report:
- Webequie First Nation:
- Shapefiles identifying the location of sites and features, provided in February 2021;
- Webequie First Nation On-Reserve Land Use Plan (May 31, 2019);
- Draft Webequie First Nation Community Based Land Use Plan (v. 4.2, March 2019);
- Draft Webequie First Nation Traditional Land and Resource Use Study for the Webequie Service Road (Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2024a), and associated shapefiles;
- Webequie First Nation Indigenous Knowledge Study for the Webequie Supply Road – Interim Report (Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2024b)3; and
- Shapefiles associated with validation sessions held with Webequie First Nation in August/September 2024.
- Marten Falls First Nation:
3 The Webequie First Nation Indigenous Knowledge Study for the Webequie Supply Road: Interim Report (October 4, 2024), is an updated version of the Draft Webequie First Nation Traditional Land and Resource Use Study for the Webequie Service Road (May 31, 2024)which was drafted following the August 2024 validation sessions with Webequie First Nation. All efforts have been made to reference the most recent report (i.e., the Interim Report dated October 4, 2024).
- Marten Falls First Nation Indigenous Knowledge, Land Use and Occupancy Study for the Northern Access Roads – Proposed Webequie Supply Road Project (Marten Falls First Nation, 2024)
- Weenusk First Nation
- Draft Weenusk First Nation Existing Conditions Report: Webequie Supply Road Project (MNP LLP, n.d.)
Section 4.0 below provides a summary of the findings of these reports and identifies those potential B.H.R.s and/or C.H.L.s that are located within or intersect with the Webequie Supply Road L.S.A.
2.6 Preliminary Impact Assessment Methodology
The development of transportation infrastructure has the potential to impact
B.H.R.s and C.H.L.s through various methods. These impacts are outlined in Information Bulletin 3: Heritage Impact Assessments for Provincial Heritage Properties (Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism, 2017):
- removal or demolition of all or part of any heritage attribute;
- removal or demolition of any building or structure on the provincial heritage property whether or not it contributes to the cultural heritage value or interest of the property (i.e. non-contributing buildings);
- any land disturbance, such as a change in grade and/or drainage patterns that may adversely affect a provincial heritage property, including archaeological resources;
- alterations to the property in a manner that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with cultural heritage value or interest of the property. This may include necessary alterations, such as new systems or materials to address health and safety requirements, energy-saving upgrades, building performance upgrades, security upgrades or servicing needs;
- alterations for access requirements or limitations to address such factors as accessibility, emergency egress, public access, security;
- introduction of new elements that diminish the integrity of the property, such as a new building, structure or addition, parking expansion or addition, access or circulation roads, landscape features;
- changing the character of the property through removal or planting of trees or other natural features, such as a garden, or that may result in the obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features;
- change in use for the provincial heritage property that could result in
permanent, irreversible damage or negates the property’s cultural heritage
value or interest;
- continuation or intensification of a use of the provincial heritage property without conservation of heritage attributes;
- shadows that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the visibility of an associated natural feature or plantings, such as a tree row, hedge or garden;
- isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship;
- vibration damage to a structure due to construction or activities on or adjacent to the property; and
- alteration or obstruction of a significant view of or from the provincial heritage property from a key vantage point.
In accordance with this document, direct adverse impacts are identified where the following resulting conditions are anticipated:
- a permanent and irreversible negative affect on the cultural heritage value or interest of a property; and
- loss of a heritage attribute on all or part of the provincial heritage property.
Indirect adverse impacts are identified where activities on or near the property may adversely affect its cultural heritage value or interest and/or heritage
attributes. Positive impacts may also result where a property’s cultural heritage
value or interest and/or heritage attributes is conserved or enhanced.
Several additional factors are also considered when evaluating potential impacts on identified B.H.R.s and C.H.L.s. These are outlined in a document set out by the Ministry of Culture and Communications (now Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism) and the Ministry of the Environment entitled Guideline for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of Environmental Assessments (1992). While this document has largely been superseded in some respects by more current policies and legislation, the guidance provided that continues to be of relevance to this specific project includes the following definitions:
- Magnitude: the amount of physical alteration or destruction which can be expected;
- Severity: the irreversibility or reversibility of an impact;
- Duration: the length of time an adverse impact persists;
- Frequency: the number of times an impact can be expected;
- Range: the spatial distribution, widespread or site specific, of an adverse impact; and
- Diversity: the number of different kinds of activities to affect a heritage resource.
The Technical Guidance for Assessing Physical and Cultural Heritage or any Structure, Site or Thing provides the following examples of adverse effects on heritage or any structure, site or thing resulting from a change in the environment:
- Damage, disturbance or destruction in a conservation area.
- Damage, disturbance or destruction of archaeological remains or sites, or spiritual sites.
- Deterioration of an architectural or historic building or monument caused by vibration.
- Destruction of heritage buildings or archaeological sites.
- Disturbance of the setting of heritage buildings structures or sites.
The proposed undertaking should endeavor to avoid adversely affecting known and potential B.H.R.s and C.H.L.s and interventions should be managed in such a way that identified features are conserved. When the nature of the undertaking is such that adverse impacts are unavoidable, it may be necessary to implement alternative approaches or mitigation strategies that alleviate the negative effects on identified B.H.R.s and C.H.L.s. Mitigation is the process of lessening or negating anticipated adverse impacts and may include, but are not limited to, such actions as alternative design or construction approaches, avoidance, monitoring, protection, relocation, remedial landscaping, and documentation of the B.H.R. or
C.H.L. if is to be demolished or relocated.
Various works associated with infrastructure development have the potential to affect B.H.R.s and C.H.L.s in a variety of ways, and as such, appropriate mitigation measures for the undertaking need to be considered.
3.0 Summary of Historical Development Within the Study Area
This section provides a summary of historical research. A review of available primary and secondary source material was undertaken to produce a contextual overview of the study area, including a general description of Indigenous land use, Indigenous community histories, and other land uses.
3.1 Early Indigenous Land Use and Settlement
Northern Ontario was occupied by human populations much later than the south during precontact times. The Laurentide glacier would have retreated north of the study area by approximately 10,500-10,000 years before present (B.P.) (Karrow & Warner, 1990, p. Fig 2.9, 2.11).4 Populations at this time would have been highly
4 While many types of information can inform the precontact settlement of Ontario, such as oral traditions and histories, this summary provides information drawn from archaeological research conducted in Northern Ontario over the last century.
mobile, inhabiting a boreal-parkland similar to the modern sub-arctic. By approximately 10,000 B.P., the environment had progressively warmed and populations now occupied more extensive territories (C. J. Ellis & Deller, 1990, pp. 62–63).
The archaeological record of the Hudson Bay and James Bay Lowlands is just beginning to be understood. Archaeological investigations in the region, which began in the 1980s, have indicated that the area was occupied for millennia prior to the fur trade era and dating at least as early as the Archaic period (Julig, 1982; Pilon, 1987). While it is likely that Indigenous occupation was focused on the major river systems, there is no doubt that overland travel between drainage systems was conducted on a regular basis.
In regions north of the Great Lakes, Early Paleo groups were present between 11,000 B.P. and 10,000 B.P. Late Paleo settlement, known locally as the Lakehead Complex, may have occurred in the Thunder Bay area immediately following the lowering of the glacial Lake Minong water levels. This initial settlement took place when the climate and vegetation of the area was comparable to that of the modern sub-arctic. Archaeological evidence concerning these people is very limited since populations were not large and since little of the sparse material culture of these nomadic hunters has survived the millennia. Virtually all that remains in the archaeological record are tools and by-products of their sophisticated chipped stone tool industry. During this period, there was a marked preference for lithic raw materials derived directly from bedrock outcrops, rather than from secondary sources such as glacial till. Paleo populations in northwestern Ontario obtained jasper taconite, a distinctive flint like material with maroon colouring and variegated bands of reddish brown, from the area of the extensive Cummins quarry site situated in Thunder Bay or from one of several sources located in the region.
Given the tundra- or taiga-like environment of the time, and the locations of hunting camps, it has generally been postulated that the Paleo subsistence economy focused on the hunting of large Pleistocene mammals such as
mastodon, moose, elk and especially caribou. Of particular interest in this regard is the frequent location of the larger Paleo sites adjacent to the strandlines of large pro- and post-glacial lakes. This settlement pattern has been attributed to the strategic placement of camps, representing larger population aggregates, in order to intercept migrating caribou herds. This traditional view of Paleo subsistence practices is currently being modified, as it is becoming more apparent that smaller game and fish were also important dietary contributors. Whether the Paleo peoples were dependent on the constantly moving herds or on less communal species, these subsistence strategies would have necessitated that social groups remain relatively small and egalitarian. These highly mobile groups probably moved in seasonal patterns throughout very large territories.
By approximately 8,000 B.P., subsistence shifted to an increased reliance on aquatic resources, likely anadromous fish. This is suggested by evidence from isotopic analysis of bone samples from the Wapekeka Burial site (dated to approximately 7,000 B.P.) (Wright, 2001). Comparative evidence from the O.S.A. Lake site near Georgian Bay suggests that contact existed between populations in north-central Ontario and those in southern Ontario (Wright, 2001). Such communication networks certainly extended into Northern Ontario as well. The Great Lakes basins experienced low-water levels, from 10,000-5,500 B.P. and many sites that would have been located on those former shorelines are now submerged.
Between 8,000 and 3,000 B.P., people developed an adaptation to the environment that involved the use of many diverse animal and plant resources. It was during this period that present day plant and animal communities were becoming established. Exploitation of these resources required being in specific places at certain times of the year (e.g., fish spawning areas, moose yards, berry patches, beaver ponds). This resulted in a more structured pattern of repetitive seasonal movement through a territory. Fishing became a more important part of the subsistence base, and the widespread use of canoes probably developed in this period. The annual subsistence cycle probably involved small interior fall and winter hunting camps which were situated in areas known to be frequented by
large game, and larger spring and summer settlements which were located near river mouths and lakeshores in order to exploit rich aquatic resources.
Four distinct Archaic groups are thought to have been present in the Canadian Shield region: Shield Archaic, Old Copper Archaic, Plains Archaic, with Laurentian Archaic known from the eastern limits of the Shield (Lambert, 1983, pp. 14–15). Mid-Archaic climate change resulted in the northeasterly spread of parkland and grassland into eastern Manitoba and Northwestern Ontario. This also brought bison into the area around 7,000 B.P., followed by Plains Archaic groups from Manitoba and Minnesota, leading to a mixing of Shield and Plains Archaic cultural traits (Hamilton, 1981, p. 20). Archaeological evidence reveals active trade across the Northern Plains in Knife River chert from western North Dakota, obsidian, marine shell artifacts, and Great Lakes copper, suggesting an extensive east–west trade route connecting to the Great Lakes region (Eifler, 2011).
By the Late Archaic period, almost every lake and river system in northwestern Ontario had been occupied or traveled across, and human subsistence and settlement patterns were relatively uniform for a long period of time over a large area. Given the length of time encompassed by this cultural period, and the typically small size and short-term occupation of its sites, most Archaic sites manifest themselves as ephemeral lithic scatters which lack diagnostic artifacts. During this time, people began to manufacture objects from native copper, which was either mined from massive deposits found in the Lake Superior basin or from pure nuggets or float copper found in glacial deposits and stream beds. It was then heated to anneal or soften it and then cold hammered to the desired shape. Copper artifacts from the Lake Superior area are found throughout the Great Lakes area, having been an important long distance trade item.
By approximately 2,200 B.P., populations focused their habitation at rivers and lakes, while subsistence involved a variety of resources drawn from a wide territory. At this time, the earliest evidence exists for occupation located near prime fishing grounds. Soon after, burial mounds appear in the archaeological record, and the exotic nature of the grave offerings found associated with these
burial mounds expands on the prior evidence for extensive exchange networks (Wright, 2001). Burial practise should be seen as deliberate and reflective of the cosmology of these people (Parker Pearson, 1999, p. 141). All these new cultural features suggest new concepts of social organization, investment of labour and territorialism (Brown, 1995, p. 13; MacDonald et al., 1994, pp. 7–8). The prevalence of mound burials around the Upper Great Lakes reflects likely cultural connections with populations from Ohio and Illinois. There are differences in some burial mound practices in the Shield versus elsewhere in the Great Lakes basin in terms of stone cairn construction versus earthen mound construction.
The apparent similarities in ceremonialism, however, as well as the material evidence for extensive cultural contacts across regions may be part of a worldview which spanned the entire Great Lakes basin and likely beyond. Macro- band social organization and subsistence focused on the seasonal exploitation of resources such as fish and wild rice (where available), though evidence from the Wabinosh River site west of Lake Nipigon may indicate year-round occupation (Wright, 1999).
Remains from Laurel-period (2,200–1,200 B.P.) archaeological sites show a strong riverine and lake adaptation. The subsistence strategies during this period involved, like the Archaic period, a wide range of faunal and floral resources.
Seasonal gatherings of people for subsistence and social purposes began to occur during this period, resulting in the appearance of large settlements at prime fishing locations. A Middlesex burial mound occurs in the Killarney area northeast of Georgian Bay, and later Laurel mounds are known from the Rainy River area of northwestern Ontario, indicating a strongly developed mortuary practice influenced by the Hopewell groups of the Ohio valley. The grave offerings associated with these burials continued to place an emphasis upon the exotic origin of raw materials. These developments suggest that changes first evidenced in the preceding Early Woodland period continued to develop and be expanded upon.
In northern Ontario, this period saw the addition of pottery and net sinkers to the artifact assemblage. The Laurel artifact assemblage is also characterized by
distinctive side notched projectile points, small blade knives, great numbers of scrapers, some bone harpoons, and some use of native copper. Laurel pottery is finely made, thin ware with numerous rows of a variety of stamped patterns decorating the shoulders, necks, and/or collars of the conically shaped vessels.
Sites from this period appear to be more numerous than the previous periods, and the pattern of large seasonal settlements appears to have remained well established from the Middle Woodland period. In northern Ontario, three ceramic traditions predominate during the Late Woodland period. Blackduck ceramics are generally characterized by a variety of cord wrapped object impressions over the whole pot, while Selkirk decorations consist of fabric impressions on the body of the vessel and a variety of decorations between the shoulder and the lip, consisting of cord-wrapped object impressions, incised impressions, punctates and bosses. In addition to these ceramics, the Late Woodland artifact assemblage is characterized by small triangular and side-notched projectile points, use of relatively unmodified greywacke flake or spall tools, flat slate knives, and, towards the end of the period, clay smoking pipes.
Before the European arrival, extensive exchange systems had already developed between the Anishinaabek (Nipissing, Odawa, Ojibway) and Cree of north-central and northeastern Ontario and the Huron-Wendat and other Iroquoian groups to the south. The Nipissing appear to have played an important role in this trade in the upper Great Lakes. The end of the Late Woodland period in Northern Ontario is marked by the appearance of European Trade goods circa 1600 C.E. Historical documentation provides some information on the populations which lived in Northern Ontario during the seventeenth century. The extensive mobility of these populations reflects a different sense of territoriality than the settled agricultural or even itinerant horticultural groups living to the south and data is often insufficient to accurately map the ranges of individual groups.
3.1.1 Treaties and Traditional Territories
The Study Area is within the James Bay Treaty 9, signed on August 9, 1905, between the Government of Canada in the name of King Edward VII and Cree and Ojibway leaders. The treaty was for:
“that portion or tract of land lying and being in the province of Ontario bounded on the south by the height of land and the northern boundary of the territory ceded by the Robinson Superior Treaty of 1850, and the Robinson Huron Treaty of 1850, and bounded on the east and north by the boundaries of the said province of Ontario as defined by law and on the west by a part of the eastern boundary of the territory ceded by the Northwest Angle Treaty No. 3” (Crown- Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, 2016).
The purpose of the Treaty was to secure the land for settlement, immigration, trade, and travel, mining, and lumbering. Petitions to enter treaty relations also came from Ojibway and Cree north of the already signed Robinson-Superior and Robinson-Huron Treaties of 1850 (Praxis Research Associates, 2005). The Cree
agreed to the terms of the treaty and the promise of “Happiness and Prosperity” along with the protection of their hunting, fishing, and land rights, and education for their children and future generations (Moose Cree First Nation, 2015).
Ratification of the treaty came in 1907 for the Dominion to approve and confirm the 12 listed reserves (Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, 2016).
In 1929 and 1930, adhesions to Treaty 9 were signed between a number of Indigenous groups and the federal government. Ultimately, the adhesions extended Treaty 9 territory by an additional 331,500 square kilometres, covering more than two-thirds of the province of Ontario (Leslie, 2016).
The study area sits on Ontario Crown lands and federal lands (Webequie First Nation Reserve). As part of the input received through consultation activities conducted to date for this project, Marten Falls First Nation and Neskantaga First Nation have both indicated direct impacts to their traditional territories by the Project; and Attawapiskat First Nation, Weenusk (Peawanuck) First Nation and Kasabonika Lake First Nation have asserted that they have shared traditional
territory with Webequie First Nation, but have not specified as to whether these areas coincide with the study area. Weenusk First Nation has stated that they have overlapping traditional territory in and around the Winisk River downstream (north) of Webequie First Nation Reserve lands. Kasabonika Lake First Nation has asserted that they share traditional territory with Webequie First Nation and actively use these lands for hunting and fishing. Attawapiskat First Nation traditional territory is deemed by Attawapiskat to extend into the study area by
virtue of the community’s use of the Attawapiskat River and its subwatershed areas, and Attawapiskat has expressed concerns over potential effects to the “western portion” of its territory (Webequie First Nation, 2020b).
Throughout the period of initial European settlement, Indigenous groups continued to fish, gather, and hunt within their traditional and treaty territories, albeit often with legal and informal restrictions imposed by colonial authorities and settlers. In many cases, Indigenous peoples acted as guides and teachers, passing on their traditional knowledge to settlers, allowing them to sustain themselves in their new homes. Indigenous peoples entered into economic arrangements and partnerships, and often inter-married with settlers. However, pervasive and systemic oppression and marginalization of Indigenous peoples also characterized Euro-Canadian colonization, with thousands being displaced from their lands, denied access to traditional and treaty hunting, fishing, and collecting grounds, and forced to assimilate with Euro-Canadian culture through mandatory attendance at Day and Residential Schools (Ray, 2005; Rogers & Smith, 1994).
Children from reserves across Northern Ontario, including Webequie First Nation, attended residential schools. Several residential schools opened in Northern Ontario in the late nineteenth century, and more were added in the twentieth century. In Northern Ontario, residential schools were located in Chapleau, Cristal Lake, Fort Albany, Fort Frances, Fort William, Kenora, McIntosh, Moose Factory, Poplar Hill, Sault Ste. Marie, Sioux Lookout, Spanish, and Stirland Lake. While most of the schools in these communities were closed in the 1970s, the last school – at Stirland Lake – did not close until 1991. Much like they did across Canada, residential schools in Northern Ontario were operated by members of
various Christian denominations, including the Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, and Mennonite churches. These schools were harmful to the children who attended, given that they were “a systematic, government-sponsored attempt to destroy Aboriginal cultures and language and to assimilate Aboriginal peoples so that they no longer existed as distinct peoples” (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015). They have contributed to a diverse number of health concerns such as mental health and addiction issues, anxiety, substance abuse, as well as a loss of traditional knowledge, skills, practices, and languages (Chiefs of Ontario, 2024; National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation, 2024; Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2024b).
3.2 Webequie First Nation Community History
Webequie First Nation is an Anishinini (Oji-Cree) community located on the northern peninsula of Eastwood Island on Winisk Lake in the upper reaches of the Winisk River. The name for the community, “Webequie”, comes from the Anishininiimowin word meaning “shaking head” or “shaking head from side to side” or “back and forth”, which is a reference to the way mergansers shake their head and is why a merganser has been incorporated into the community’s logo (Webequie First Nation, 2019a). In 1916, the Geographic Names Board selected the name Winisk Lake over Wabikiwei (Webequie) or Duck Lake, indicating that the lake was also known by those two names. It is also referred to as Pepesquew Lake on the 1848 Arrowsmith Map (Pugh, 1971; Webequie First Nation and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, 2019).
Webequie Anishininniwuk is the term for the original people of the land in which Webequie First Nation is located and the term by which members of this First Nation refer to themselves. The Anishnaabek people were “highly mobile and maintained a sacred connection with a large ancestral territory in order to sustain themselves.” Webequie Anishininniwuk were historically organized by a ‘dohdem’ (clan) system whereby dohdem or family groups supported themselves and had responsibility for distinct areas, though regularly coming together with other groups for celebratory gatherings or ceremonial events. In consultation with
these other groups, the dohdem used the land cyclically in order to maintain the environment over time (Webequie First Nation, 2019a; Webequie First Nation and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, 2019). The ancestors of the Webequie community have lived in this area for countless generations. In the 1970s, Webequie Elder Fred Jacobs reported that Waupus was the name of Anishinaabek families that lived between Fort Hope and Kasabonika, including the area of Webequie. These may have been the same Rabbit (Waupus) Anishinaabek hunters who were trading at Fort Albany in the 1720s (Greenberg & Morrison, 1982).
The present-day community, renowned for its hunting and fishing, was first used as a summer gathering site for many family groups that occupied the surrounding area (Webequie First Nation and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, 2019). During the first half of the nineteenth century the Hudson’s Bay Company (H.B.C.) established a post on Winisk Lake known as Fort Weenisk (Pugh, 1971).
This post was still in operation in 1911 (Skinner, 1911). The H.B.C. also maintained a post, Fort Concord, in the 1830s further up in the headwaters of the Winisk River on Wapikopa Lake (Francis, 2018). In 1964, the H.B.C. re-established a store in the Webequie community.
When Treaty 9 was signed in 1905, permanent residency at what is now the community site began, though it was one of three sites in the Winisk Lake vicinity that were selected by community members for settlement. Various goods and services were provided at Webequie, and a day school began operations.
However, under Treaty 9, the Webequie community was included with the Fort Hope Band (Eabametoong) likely because Webequie families were trading furs and receiving supplies at the Hudson’s Bay post at Lansdowne House, which was a northern outpost of the Fort Hope post on Eabamet Lake (Webequie First Nation and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, 2019).
In 1969, Winisk River Provincial Park was designated by the Ontario government as a Wild River Park, despite the fact that it encompassed the community. In 1985, Webequie finally acquired band status, something many members had
pushed for dating back to the 1940s. In 2001, Webequie received full reserve status. Webequie First Nation now has membership within the Matawa First Nations Tribal Council and is a member of the Nishnawbe Aski Nation (Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2024b; Webequie First Nation and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, 2019).
Following Treaty 9’s passage in 1905, local leaders stressed the need to continue to have an active relationship with their ancestral lands. Currently, a three-tiered model charts the community’s “approach to land use, protection, management and resource development activities” as it relates to Webequie First Nation and the surrounding traditional territory. It was created with a focus on a Reserve Land Base, a Cultural Land Base, and an Economic Land Base, and was designed “to preserve the connection and life-sustaining relationship between Anishnawbek and the land in response to the changing circumstances of the 20th and 21st centuries” (Webequie First Nation and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, 2019).
3.3 First Nation Community Histories
The following sub-sections provide a brief history of First Nations whose Aboriginal and/or treaty rights may be affected by, or who may have an interest in, the Webequie Supply Road Project. Upon initializing the Project, the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (M.E.C.P.) and the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (the Agency) identified 22 Indigenous communities (including Webequie First Nation) whose Aboriginal and/or Treaty Rights and Interests may be affected by the Project and/or may have interest in the Project, based on the nature and location of the Project.
3.3.1 Aroland First Nation
Aroland First Nation is an Anishinaabek community located approximately 20 kilometres west of Nakina on Highway 643 and along the Canadian National Railroad. Around 1900, the Aroland settlement was established in close proximity to the Hudson’s Bay store. Aroland First Nation ancestors originally came from
Eabametoong (Fort Hope), Marten Falls, Ginoogaming (Long Lake 77), which are signatories to Treaty 9, and Long Lake 58 and Fort William First Nations, which are associated with the 1850 Robinson Superior Treaty (Long, 2010). Aroland received First Nation status in 1985. Its current reserve lands extend from Highway 643 to the western and northern shores of Esnagami Lake.
3.3.2 Attawapiskat First Nation
Attawapiskat First Nation is a Mushkegowuk Cree community located at the mouth of the Attawapiskat River near James Bay. At the time of the signing of Treaty 9 the Attawapiskat band was included with the Fort Albany band. It was not until 1929 that the Attawapiskat band signed the 1929 Adhesion to Treaty 9. The original reserve granted by the adhesion to Treaty 9 in 1929 is located 150 kilometres inland from the James Bay coast on the Ekwan River. This reserve was hardly if ever occupied by band members (Cummins, 1992, p. 55).
The community developed around the H.B.C. post that was established sometime between circa 1850 and 1900. In 1894, Oblate missionaries established a Catholic church near the H.B.C. post. A second post operated by the Réveillon Frères operated in the early part of the twentieth century until they were bought out by the H.B.C. in the 1930s.
The community consisted of families that hunted, fished, and trapped throughout the Attawapiskat and Ekwan River drainages. During the spring and fall, most Attawapiskat families travelled to the James Bay coast to hunt waterfowl, most significantly, geese. In December, all the families would travel to the settlement to spend Christmas before heading back out to their camps in the interior to hunt and trap.
3.3.3 Constance Lake First Nation
Constance Lake First Nation is an Anishinini community located at Pagwa. It was granted band status in 1945. In the 1880s, the community was centred around the Hudson’s Bay post at the confluence on the Kenogami River and the Albany River. The community then moved to the English River near Mammamattawa
where they were known as the English River band. They were included with the Fort Albany Band when Treaty 9 was signed in 1905. During the early twentieth century, they moved from the English River to Pagwa. Constance Lake First Nation is made up of former members of the English River, Fort Albany, Fort Hope, and Moose Factory Bands. They lived throughout the Kenogami River watershed (Constance Lake First Nation, n.d.; Long, 2010).
The ancestors of Constance Lake First Nation hunted, trapped, and fished along the Kenogami, Kabinakagami, Nagagami, Pagwachuan, Wakashi, Awagakama, Squirrel, Fox, Pitukupi, Little Ash, Big Ash, Little Current, Drowning, Ridge, Albany, and Shekak river systems and Pledger, Pitukupi, Constance, Trilsbeck, Serinack, Martison, Ridge, Melanson, Fushimi, Fox, Bannerman, and Luhta (Medicine Creek) lake systems (Constance Lake First Nation, n.d.).
3.3.4 ![Text Box: DRAFT]()
Eabametoong (Fort Hope) First Nation
Eabametoong First Nation is an Anishinaabek community located on Eabamet Lake in the upper reaches of the Albany River, up-river from Marten Falls. The name Eabametoong means “at the reversing of the waterplace.” The water flow from Eabamet Lake into the Albany River reverses each year, resulting from spring runoff water, such that water flows into Eabamet Lake from the Albany River for a short period of time (Eabametoong First Nation, 2022).
The community was made up of families of hunters and trappers that settled in close proximity to the H.B.C. post established in 1894. Fort Hope was an important post in the region attracting a large number of Anishinaabek hunters from both sides of the Albany and the upper Winisk Rivers. The earliest fur trade post in the area, Eabamet Lake House, was established by the Northwest Company in 1774.
Treaty 9 was signed at Fort Hope in 1905 and the Fort Hope band was established with Katchang the first elected ogimaa (leader/chief). The new community of Eabametoong was established in 1982 with the official name of Eabametoong First Nation being adopted in 1985.
3.3.5 Fort Albany First Nation
Fort Albany First Nation (Peetabeck) is an Inninuk community located along the west coast of James Bay. It was established in the vicinity of one of the earliest Hudson’s Bay posts, built in the late seventeenth century. Fort Albany First Nation members signed Treaty 9 in 1905 (Long, 2010).
In 1957, the construction of a radar base divided and displaced the community. Catholic members of the community moved to Sinclair Island and the mainland opposite the south channel of the river where they became known as the Fort Albany First Nation. The Anglican members of the community settled on land set aside by Treaty 9 in 1905 and established the Kashechewan First Nation. Their traditional territory extends throughout the Albany River watershed (Long, 2010).
3.3.6 ![Text Box: DRAFT]()
Ginoogaming First Nation
Ginoogaming First Nation was formerly known as the Long Lake Band and the Long Lake 77 First Nation. Ginoogaming First Nation is an Anishinaabek community located approximately 40 kilometres west of Geraldton on the north shore of Long Lake. Long Lake 77 reserve was established by Treaty 9 in 1906 (Long, 2010).
3.3.7 Kasabonika Lake First Nation
Kasabonika Lake First Nation is an Anishinini community located on Kasabonika Lake at the headwaters of the Winisk River approximately 100 kilometres northwest of Webequie. This community was originally included with the Big Trout Lake band (Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug) at the time of the signing of the Treaty 9 Adhesion in 1929. Kasabonika Lake First Nation acquired band status in 1976 (Long, 2010). The community moved to its present location in 1964. Prior to the move it was situated five kilometres away on the Asheweig River (Sieciechowicz, 1986).
3.3.8 Kashechewan First Nation
Kashechewan First Nation was formerly part of the Fort Albany Inninuk community located on the west shore of James Bay. In 1957, Anglican members of the community left Fort Albany and established Kashechewan First Nation on reserve land set aside by Treaty 9. Ancestors of the Kashechewan First Nation were original signatories to Treaty 9 in 1905 (Long, 2010).
3.3.9 Kingfisher Lake First Nation
This Oji-Cree First Nation community is located approximately 350 kilometres northeast of Sioux Lookout on the south shore of Kingfisher Lake. In the early nineteenth century, the people who resided around Kingfisher Lake began trading at the nearby Big Beaver House outpost, run by the H.B.C. Representatives of Kingfisher Lake First Nation participated in the signing of the Treaty 9 adhesion at Big Trout Lake in 1929-1930, and members were considered part of the larger Big Trout Lake band. The reserve lands were established in 1965 and Kingfisher Lake officially launched as its own band in 1975. Trapping, fishing and forestry are the key occupations/activities for band members (Chiefs of Ontario, 2005). Kingfisher Lake First Nation is a community within the Shibogama First Nations Council, a regional tribal council based in Sioux Lookout and which is itself a member of the Nishnawbe Aski Nation (Shibogama First Nations Council, 2024).
3.3.10 Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug First Nation
Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug First Nation, formerly known as Big Trout Lake First Nation, is located on the north shore of Big Trout Lake. The community was established in the late eighteenth century in the area around the former Northwest Company outpost and an H.B.C. post was established in 1808. Big Trout Lake is situated at the headwaters of the Fawn River, a tributary of the Severn River. The Severn River and its tributaries comprise part of
Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug First Nation’s traditional territory. Members of
the community were signatories of the 1929 adhesion to Treaty 9 (Long, 2010).
3.3.11 Long Lake #58 First Nation
Long Lake #58 First Nation is situated on Highway 11 along the northeast shore of Long Lake and adjacent to the town of Longlac. Long Lake 58 First Nation’s traditional territory, on the northern shore of Long Lake, is within the James
Bay drainage basin and is within the area of Treaty 9. However, the governments of Canada and Ontario hold that the band’s aboriginal title was ceded to the Crown by the 1850 Robinson Superior Treaty, despite that treaty covering lands that drained into Lake Superior. The First Nation maintains that they never signed any treaty, and never ceded their aboriginal title to their traditional lands (Long Lake #58 First Nation, 2024).
3.3.12 Marten Falls First Nation
Marten Falls First Nation is an Anishinaabek community located at Ogoki Post at the confluence of the Ogoki and Albany Rivers, which is the first major rapids on the Albany travelling from James Bay. The original Anishinaabemowin name for the Albany River was the Cacheohawan River (Newton & Mountain, 1980, p. 57).
The first inland post of the H.B.C., Henley House was established about 80 kilometres down-river from Marten Falls in 1743. The post, re-named Gloucester House, was moved up-river to Washi Lake in 1774 until it was abandoned in 1814. In 1784, the H.B.C. established a major post at Marten Falls, which represented the centre of trade in the area until it was abandoned in 1923 when a new post was established at the mouth of the Ogoki River (Vyvyan, 1980). The Marten Falls post was also known as Ernest House (Newton & Mountain, 1980, p. 55).
While Anishinaabek hunters travelled 800 to 1,000 kilometres to trade at Gloucester House, travelling from the Lake Winnipeg, Rainy River, Lake Nipigon, and Lac Seul there was a group of hunters that lived in close proximity to the post. By 1817-18, there were 35 hunters and their families who hunted north of Washi Lake toward the Attawapiskat drainage system (Newton & Mountain, 1980, p.
58). When Treaty 9 was signed in 1905, there were approximately 125 community members present. William Whitehead was elected as Ogimaa (leader/chief)
(Long, 2010). The signing took place at the former community location at Marten Falls. Although Anishinaabek families settled in close proximity to the H.B.C., some continue to live in the surrounding area. For example, the Baxter family has occupied a camp on Washi Lake for over 200 years (M. Cooper, personal communication, 2014).
3.3.13 Métis Nation of Ontario
The eighteenth century saw the ethnogenesis in Ontario of the Métis when Métis people began to identify as a separate group, rather than as extensions of their typically maternal First Nations and paternal European ancestry (MNC, n.d.).
Living in both Euro-Canadian and Indigenous societies, the Métis acted as agents and subagents in the fur trade but also as surveyors and interpreters. Métis populations were predominantly located north and west of Lake Superior, however, communities were located throughout Ontario (MNC, n.d.; Stone & Chaput, 1978). These settlements were interconnected and defined by a highly mobile lifestyle, the fur trade network, seasonal rounds, kinship connections, and a shared collective history and identity (MNC, n.d.). Hunting, fishing, processing maple sugar and cultivating/harvesting crops were also important activities in Métis life (Lytwyn, 1998). These communities would continue to grow during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries with the establishment of the Northwest Company, XY Company and the Hudson’s Bay Company, and significantly contributed to the economy and socio-political history of the Great Lakes region.
During the early nineteenth century, many Métis families moved towards locales around southern Lake Huron and Georgian Bay, including Kincardine, Owen Sound, Penetanguishene, and Parry Sound (MNC, n.d.). By the early 1900s, many people were disinclined to publicly self-identify as Métis in Ontario, due to backlash from a series of violent events involving Métis in Manitoba and Saskatchewan during the mid- to late-nineteenth century which culminated in the 1884-1885 uprising known as the North-West Rebellion (Ibid). By the mid- twentieth century, Indigenous communities, including the Métis, began to advance their rights within Ontario and across Canada, and in 1982, the Métis
were recognized as one of the distinct Indigenous peoples in Canada. Recent decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada (Daniels v. Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development), 2016; R. v. Powley, 2003) have reaffirmed that Métis people have full rights as one of the Indigenous people of Canada under subsection 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867.
3.3.14 Mishkeegogamang First Nation
Mishkeegogamang First Nation, formerly known as Osnaburgh prior to 1993, is an Ojibway community located at the intersection of Lake St. Joseph and the Albany River, approximately 315 kilometres north of Thunder Bay. Approximately 900 people reside on the two reserves that constitute this First Nation, with 500 more residing off the reserve (Mishkeegogamang First Nation, 2010). Historically, the people of Mishkeegogamang hunted, fished, trapped, and gathered available resources on a seasonal basis. In the late eighteenth century, Osnaburgh House was established by the H.B.C. at the northeast end of Lake St. Joseph.
Mishkeegogamang First Nation signed the James Bay Treaty No. 9 in 1905. The main reserve community was established on Dog Hole Lake following the creation of Highway 599 in the 1950s (Mishkeegogamang First Nation, 2010).
3.3.15 Neskantaga First Nation
Neskantaga First Nation is an Anishininiimowin community situated on Attawapiskat Lake at the headwaters of the Attawapiskat River. The H.B.C. established Lake Attawapiskat post in 1814. In 1850, the post was renamed Lansdowne House, which was a northern outpost of the Fort Hope post on Eabamet Lake.
When Treaty 9 was signed in 1905, Neskantaga, like Webequie, was included with the Fort Hope band. At one time six or more settlements were occupied by families who traded and resided for part of the year at Neskantaga in close proximity to the H.B.C. post and the nearby Catholic church. These family-based settlements included Webequie, Nibinamik, Mameigwess, Kochichi, Birch Lake, and Otonabee (Taylor, 1971). Webequie and Nibinamik families chose to remain
at their traditional settlements, while Mameigwess, Kochichi, Birch Lake, and Otonabee settled permanently at Neskantaga.
3.3.16 Nibinamik (Summer Beaver) First Nation
The Nibinamik First Nation is an Anishininiimowin community located in the headwaters of the Winisk River on Nibinamik Lake. According to Nibinamik Elder Tommy Yellowhead, the area was selected since it had been used for hunting and trapping. Many of the Anishinaabek families came from Old Summer Beaver, which is located across the lake from the present community (Wabasse, 2019).
The Old Summer Beaver settlement was occupied until 1969 when some community members moved to Webequie. The Nibinamik community was re- established in 1975 when Anglican community members left Neskantaga (Wabasse, 2019) due to religious differences with the Catholic majority.
3.3.17 North Caribou Lake First Nation
The North Caribou Lake First Nation, which is sometimes referred to as Weagamow First Nation and Round Lake First Nation, is an Oji-Cree community located approximately 320 kilometres north of Sioux Lookout. North Caribou Lake First Nation is a member of the Windigo First Nations Tribal Council and a member of the Nishnawbe Aski Nation (North Caribou Lake First Nation, 2015).
The people in the North Caribou Lake area historically hunted, fished, trapped, and gathered on a seasonal basis, and a summer encampment attracted many people from neighbouring areas such as Weagamow Lake and Windigo Lake.
When the Treaty 9 adhesion was signed in 1929, the people of these three communities united, and became known as the Caribou Lake band. The North West Company established a House at North Caribou Lake in 1809; an H.B.C. outpost was established at the same location in 1930, and a permanent H.B.C. store was erected at Weagamow Lake in 1949 (Gordon, 1983).
3.3.18 Wapekeka First Nation
Wapekeka First Nation, formerly called Angling Lake First Nation, is an Oji-Cree community located approximately 450 kilometres northeast of Sioux Lookout. This First Nation is a signatory to the Treaty 9 adhesion in 1929. While initially, band members were part of the Big Trout Lake Band, the community at Wapekeka separated and became its own band, with two reserves, in 1979 (Wapekeka First Nation, 2024). Wapekeka First Nation is a community within the Shibogama First Nations Council, a regional tribal council based in Sioux Lookout and which is itself a member of the Nishnawbe Aski Nation (Shibogama First Nations Council, 2024)
3.3.19 Wawakapewin First Nation
Wawakapewin First Nation is a small Oji-Cree community located approximately 350 kilometres northeast of Sioux Lookout. The community’s location was strategically important for its abundant resources and its setting on Long Dog Lake along the Asheweig River system (Wawakapewin First Nation, 2024).
Wawakapewin First Nation is a community within the Shibogama First Nations Council, a regional tribal council based in Sioux Lookout and which is itself a member of the Nishnawbe Aski Nation (Shibogama First Nations Council, 2024)
3.3.20 Weenusk First Nation
The Weenusk First Nation is a Mushkegowuk Cree community located near the mouth of the Winisk River. Since 1986, they have been situated at Peawanuk, which is approximately 40 kilometres upriver from the original settlement. The community relocated there due to severe spring flooding.
For hundreds of years, Weenusk families hunted, trapped, and fished throughout the Winisk River drainage, travelling on a seasonal basis to camps in the interior and on the Hudson’s Bay coast. They travelled a considerable distance upriver, including to H.B.C. posts located at Fort Albany and Fort Severn to trade furs. In 1833, the H.B.C. built Fort Concord at the mouth of the Winisk River; however, it
was short lived. In 1901, the H.B.C. established a second post, followed a few years later by their main competitors, the Réveillon Frères. Families continued to travel to their camps in the interior and on the coast, although more time was spent around the H.B.C. post, especially during the summer months. By the late nineteenth century, an Oblate mission and later a rectory was established near the post.
In 1930, the 26 families that traded at Winisk and comprised the Weenusk band signed the Adhesion to Treaty 9 and were assigned a reserve on the Ashweig River near its confluence with the Winisk River. Band members Xavier Patrick, John Bird, and David Sutherland were signatories to the treaty (Long, 2010).
3.3.21 Wunnumin Lake First Nation
Wunnumin Lake First Nation is an Anishinini community located on Wunnumin Lake at the headwaters of the Pipestone River, which flows into the Attawapiskat River. Wunnumin Lake is called Wanaman-zaaga’igan in Anishinaabemowin and means Vermillion Lake, in reference to the vermillion-coloured clay about the lake (Wunnumin Lake First Nation, n.d.).
The former community was located approximately 20 kilometres away at Big
Beaver House (Misamikwash Lake). This was the location of a Hudson’s Bay post, which was established in 1808. During the first half of the twentieth century, a forest fire destroyed the Big Beaver House settlement and the community moved to its present location. In 1929-1930, the leaders of the Big Beaver House community participated in the signing of the Treaty 9 adhesion at Big Trout Lake (Wunnumin Lake First Nation, n.d.).
3.4 Other Land Uses
The following sub-sections discuss the various land uses found within or in close proximity to the study area as based on a review of secondary sources.
Information on First Nation knowledge, traditional practices, and land use can be found in the various studies prepared by and/or for the individual First Nations as part of the Webequie Supply Road project. These studies are recent, community-
led resources that articulate historical and contemporary uses of the study area and are the authoritative sources regarding the perspective of the individual First Nations of the landscape setting of the proposed undertaking.
3.4.1 Traditional Land Uses
As evidenced by the sections above, Indigenous people have been present in this area of northwestern Ontario for thousands of years. Information shared as part of Indigenous Knowledge and Community Land Use Plans include a variety of traditional land uses by First Nations living in the area. These include areas valued for traditional uses such as fishing, hunting, and gathering food and medicines; burial and/or ceremonial sites; and canoe and other travel routes and trails.
3.4.2 Fur Trade
In the Ontario context, the fur trade had begun along the shores of the St. Lawrence River in the late sixteenth century and the fur trade in Northern Ontario came decades later. In 1670, the H.B.C. was established and its charter authorized it with ownership over all lands that drained into Hudson’s Bay, including the study area. These territories, which was called Rupert’s Land, were vast, equal to approximately one-third of the lands of Canada today (Conrad et al., 2014). As such, it was impossible for the English to control fully, and only a few outposts were established on Hudson’s Bay. Meanwhile, in 1671, the French asserted their dominance over the vast swath of land to the north and west of the Great Lakes, and began their search for furs north of Lake Superior (Careless, 1993). The French only came to recognize H.B.C. authority in 1713, following decades of imperial warfare. Nevertheless, French traders remained engaged in the fur trade in northern Ontario, and by the 1740s, Indigenous peoples in the area either travelled to H.B.C. outposts to trade or engaged with French Canadian traders who were more open to direct contact, with many developing close kinship ties, and leading to the rise of the Métis population (Careless, 1993; Foster & Eccles, 2013).
Furs continued to be traded for almost two more centuries, all through the political strife between French and English colonial governments, and, after 1867, the Canadian government. In 1870, the newly-established federal government purchased Rupert’s Land from the H.B.C. Thereafter, the federal government began to sign treaties with Indigenous peoples. The lands immediately south of the southern tip of the study area became part of Treaty No. 9 (James Bay Treaty) in 1905, and a 1929 expansion of Treaty No. 9 lands included the actual study area. The fur trade within what was eventually Treaty 9 territory is discussed in greater detail below.
During the first half of the eighteenth century, Anishinaabek families lived in small seasonally occupied settlements and camps throughout the upper reaches of the Albany, Winisk, and Attawapiskat River systems. During the fall, families would disperse to small hunting camps. In the spring they would travel to their fishing camps on the large lakes joining their extended family and other families where they would remain until the fall. Some families would travel to trade their furs at the H.B.C. post situated at the mouth of the Albany River, while others would trade south of the height of land with the Northwest Company posts at Fort William and other interior locations.
After the mid-eighteenth century, the H.B.C. began to establish inland posts in competition with the rival Northwest Company. Anishinaabek hunters would no longer have to travel long distances to trade. Families began to live in close proximity to the posts, where they could obtain items from the H.B.C. store in exchange for furs. Anishinaabek also provided country food, game, and fish to the
H.B.C. in exchange for cloth, flour, and sugar. In the second half of the nineteenth century, the Catholic and Anglican churches were established in close proximity to the H.B.C. posts. By the end of the nineteenth century, more families settled in and around the posts for most of the year. In 1905, when the Treaty 9 Commission travelled to the region to enter into Treaty with the Anishinaabek, they planned visits to only Fort Hope and Marten Falls, both main posts of the
H.B.C. The Anishinaabek assembled at these posts were given band status under the Indian Act and reserve land (Fort Hope and Marten Falls), while those from
the surrounding territory did not receive band status or reserve land (Webequie, Nibinamik, Neskantaga, Attawapiskat, Kasabonika, and Weenusk). The H.B.C. made arrangements and paid for the Treaty Commissioners’ visit, while the annuities and gratuities received by the Anishinaabek for entering into the treaty were spent at the H.B.C. stores (Long, 2010).The surrounding communities continued to travel to Fort Hope and Marten Falls to receive annuity payments on treaty day until 1930 when annuities were also paid at Lansdowne House and other Treaty 9 Adhesion bands listed in Section 3.3.
3.4.3 Overland Transportation
Webequie First Nation is a remote community which is accessed by air or a seasonal winter road. The main winter route leads southwest to the Nibinamik First Nation winter road junction. A secondary, less travelled route heads south directly to Neskantaga First Nation (Webequie First Nation and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry 2019:38). Land travel east of Webequie is limited to a sparse, informal network of trails (Webequie First Nation, 2020b, p. 100). The proposed Webequie Supply Road starts at the Webequie Airport which is located south of the community. The proposed road then travels south, away from the community.
According to their Community Based Land Use Plan, Webequie First Nation community members intensively use the area within a 40-to-50-kilometre radius around the community for traditional and recreational activities and the Elders of Webequie talk of the area within one days walk radius from the community as being of particular importance. In addition to harvesting (e.g., hunting, fishing, trapping, trees, herbs and plants, etc.) for food, tools, clothing, medicinal purposes, and spiritual practices, Webequie First Nation community members
“actively use and maintain waterway and overland travel routes, trails, campsites,
community use and trapping cabins, culturally significant and sensitive sites
across the proposed planning area” of the Community Based Land Use Plan (Webequie First Nation and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, 2019, p. 34).
3.4.4 Commercial Land Use
Webequie First Nation has been actively involved in resource based commercial activities for a number of generations, starting with the early fur trade as described in Section 3.4.2 above. Resource-based commercial activities include commercial fishing, commercial trapping, and commercial tourism, some of which continue today. Prior to the 1970s, the trapping industry and the fur trade was a primary source of income for Anishinaabek. Waterway travel routes located in the Winisk and adjacent watersheds provided access to H.B.C. trading post locations in the region. A number of traplines, trapper’s cabins, and supporting bush infrastructure have been identified within the Webequie Supply Road study area. While commercial trapping is no longer a main source of income today, it is still valued economically, traditionally, and spiritually by Webequie First Nation (Webequie First Nation and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, 2019, p. 34).
Beginning in the 1960s, Webequie First Nation members held several commercial fishing licenses within the proposed Planning Area identified in the draft Community Based Land Use Plan, targeting whitefish, walleye, and sturgeon.
While there are currently no active commercial fishing operations, Elders recall active commercial fishing operations during the 1960s and 1970s on Winisk, Chipai, Wapikopa, and Kanachuan Lakes, as well as the Winisk River (Webequie First Nation and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, 2019, p. 34).
3.4.5 Tourism and Recreation
External tourism interests began to appear in the Winisk River area in the mid-
1960s. In 1966, the provincial government set aside the “Winisk Wild River Indian Guide Territory” and established the Winisk River Provincial Park over Winisk Lake and Winisk River in 1968, encompassing the community within its boundary (Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks, 2021). Outpost camps were located on the Winisk River and operated as hunting and fishing lodges catering to fly-in customers by Winisk River Camps, located in Webequie (Ministry of
Environment, Conservation and Parks, 2021). In July 1978, a schoolteacher in Webequie was funded by the Ministry of Natural Resources to canoe a portion of Winisk River Provincial Park to establish campsites and clear portages for park visitors (Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks, 2021). In the 1980s, Webequie began a process to pursue reserve creation and change the boundary of the provincial park. As mentioned above, Webequie received official reserve status in 2001 (Webequie First Nation and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, 2019, pp. 17–18). Today, Winisk River Provincial Park sits north of the proposed corridor (a small section of the park falls within the Regional Study Area) and borders the approximate northern half of the Webequie First Nation Reserve lands (Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks, 2021). The park continues to provide opportunities for recreational use. Additionally, tourist lodges, fly-in hunting and fishing camps, and other tourist-related activities can be found in the vicinity.
3.4.6 Geological Survey of Canada and Mining
The Geological Survey of Canada (G.S.C.) was the first to explore the McFaulds Lake region in the James Bay Lowlands in 1886. That year, Robert Bell, an Officer of the G.S.C. and later its chief geologist and acting director, engaged in geological exploration and surveying in northern Ontario, including along parts of the Attawapiskat and Albany Rivers.
Mapping and exploration before 1959 were focused on petroleum potential. In the 1990s, an airborne magnetic survey was conducted throughout the northern part of the James Bay Lowlands focusing on diamond exploration (Noront Resources Ltd., 2021). The Victor Diamond Mine is located 150 kilometres east of the project’s east terminus near the proposed Noront Eagle’s Nest Mine site. The Musselwhite gold mine is located approximately 210 kilometres to the west (Webequie First Nation, 2019b, p. 19). In 2007, the region was given the name
‘the Ring of Fire’ due to the horseshoe shape of the mineral occurrences and
deposits which were discovered by Noront. As of October 3, 2012, Noront was the
largest exploration claim holder in the Ring of Fire, with 80,016 hectares of mineral claims.
A review of the Abandoned Mines Information System (A.M.I.S.), a database containing information on known abandoned mine sites and mine hazard features located on both Crown and privately held lands within Ontario, confirmed that there are no such sites within the Webequie Supply Road study area.5 According to the draft Webequie Supply Road Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference, there are 56 active, unpatented mining claims and one mining lease near, or overlapping with, the proposed Webequie Supply Road study area (Webequie First Nation, 2020b).
3.5 Review of Historical Mapping
The study area is located in a remote section of the District of Kenora in northwestern Ontario. The study area had been part of Rupert’s Land, an enormous territory granted by the British Crown to the H.B.C. upon its incorporation in 1670. The Canadian government purchased Rupert’s Land in
1868, and the study area became part of the Northwest Territories. In 1889, the Albany River became the northern boundary of Ontario. The part of the district north of the Albany River all the way to Hudson Bay was transferred from the Northwest Territories to Ontario in 1912 as part of the Ontario Boundaries Extension Act. This area was officially known as the Patricia District until 1937 when it was annexed to the District of Kenora. Thereafter, it was commonly referred to as the Patricia Portion (Archives of Ontario, 2024a, 2024b).
No nineteenth-century maps were available at the time of report preparation that depict the area in sufficient detail for inclusion in this report. To complete the mapping review for the study area and the area in general, historical topographic mapping and geological survey mapping from the twentieth century were
5 Data available for review at https://www.hub.geologyontario.mines.gov.on.ca/
examined. This report presents maps from 1910, 1924, and 1978/1987 (Figure 2 to Figure 4).
The 1910 Geological Survey of Canada Map (Figure 2) depicts the study area in a remote and sparsely populated context in the west, however it does not illustrate the eastern half of the study area. Eastwood Island at the western terminus of the study area is not labelled but is depicted with a trail in the northern half of the
island and an ‘Indian House’ on the north shore, both in the location of the Webequie First Nation settlement area. ‘Indian Graves’ are depicted to the south of Eastwood Island on the shores of the lake. ‘Weibikwei Lake’, depicted in a similar location as in later mapping, is noted to have an average depth of 35 feet and contain sturgeon, whitefish, brook trout, doré (walleye), and pike. The map also depicts the geology of the area as Laurentian bedrock composed primarily of granitic gneisses and notes the surrounding woodlands as primary spruce with some tamarack, banksian pine, and cedar in the area.
The 1924 Rand McNally Map (Figure 3) depicts the study area vicinity in little detail, with Winisk Lake depicted in a globular shape that merely approximates its actual shape and small segments of associated watercourses including the Winisk River and Fishbasket River noted. The majority of the study area east of Winisk Lake does not contain any details in this map. Outside of the study area, the Attawapiskat River is noted to the east, Lansdowne Lake is depicted at the south, and Wapikopa Lake is depicted to the northwest.
The 1978/1987 N.T.S. map (Figure 4) depict the study area in greater detail than earlier mapping, and also depicts the topography and elevations of waterbodies in the area. ‘Webequie’ is depicted as a small settlement on a peninsula at the northwest of Eastwood Island, with roads, structures, and a hospital noted. The remainder of Eastwood Island is wooded, as is the remainder of the study area with the exception of waterbodies and marshland.
Figure 2: The study area overlaid on the 1910 Geological Survey of Canada Map (Department of Mines, 1910)
Figure 3: The study area overlaid on the Rand McNally Map of Northern Ontario, 1924 (Rand McNally & Co., 1924)
Figure 4: The study area overlaid on the 1978 N.T.S. Sheet 43D/14 and 43E/3 (Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, 1978)
4.0 Existing Conditions
A field review to document the existing conditions of the study area was not possible for the purposes of this report. However, the existing conditions of the study area and its natural environment are broadly described below based on sources provided by Webequie First Nation.
4.1 Study Area Description
The study area is a proposed 107-kilometre all-season road that will span from the airport on the grounds of Webequie First Nation in the west to the proposed mining site near McFaulds Lake in the west (Webequie First Nation, 2020a). The right-of-way will be approximately 35 metres wide. The first segment extends in a southeasterly direction from Webequie First Nation for 51 kilometres, including 17 kilometres located within the reserve lands; the second segment extends in an easterly direction for 56 kilometres, ending at the future mining site called the Ring of Fire (Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2024b). The supply road’s design and eventual construction necessarily takes into consideration environmental, wildlife, ecological, and geological concerns, as well as several engineering and geotechnical factors, including the type of terrain, the number of water crossings, soil types, and the proximity to potential aggregate sources (Webequie First Nation, 2020a; Webequie First Nation and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, 2019).
4.2 Physiography
The western half of the study area is within the Severn Uplands division and Big Trout Lake ecoregion of the Canadian Shield physiographic region and the eastern half is within the James Bay Lowlands ecoregion of the Hudson Bay Lowland physiographic region. The area is known for the Precambrian bedrock, as well as many wetlands and large rivers and streams, which flow to Hudson Bay and James Bay.
The study area is situated within a band of sporadic permafrost that is part of the Discontinuous Permafrost Zone of Canada’s permafrost (Webequie First Nation, 2020b, p. 79). In the Discontinuous Zone, some areas beneath the land surface have permafrost and other areas are free of permafrost. In the sporadic permafrost band where the study area is located, permafrost occurs in islands (10 to 50 percent of the land area is underlain by permafrost) and varies in thickness (estimated at a few metres in the study area). The active layer (surface layer of soil or rock above the permafrost) may not extend down to the permafrost, and ground ice content in the upper 10 to 20 metres of the ground is categorized as Low (less than 10 percent). The thickness of the permafrost may be influenced by soil and rock type, snow cover and proximity to waterbodies.
Portions of the preferred route for the all-season road traverse intact boreal forest (including bogs and fens). The terrain generally features large wetland areas, several lakes and ponds, and slow flowing, often meandering streams and rivers. Upland areas are common along riverbanks and associated with glacial till deposits. These areas, with contrasting vegetation due to much better drained soils, constitute a relatively low percentage of the landscape in the area. Poplar trees dominate upland glacial till deposits, while dense spruce trees typically dominate the stream and riverbanks.
The preliminary preferred route is also situated approximately 15 kilometres south of Winisk River Provincial Park, which is a natural heritage landscape feature of interest that contains physiographic landforms such as a large moraine and drumlin field. Geological features include the Sachigo Subprovince, Big Beaverhouse Moraine, Winisk Drumlin Field, and Cochrane Advance (Webequie First Nation, 2020b, p. 76).
4.3 Surficial Geology
Surficial geology within the study area consists of exposed bedrock as well as large moraines. Much of the surficial deposit is dominated by silt and silt clay deposits as a result of glaciolacustrine deposition from post-glacial Lake Agassiz.
The landscape is weakly broken, with low lying ridges of clay and sand and extensive peatlands in low lying areas (Webequie First Nation, 2020b, p. 79). Terrain and topography are generally flat, with some localized relief. Large stretches of the preferred route pass through water-logged areas/marshes exhibiting poor ground condition, with deeper peat and organics and poor drainage.
4.4 Soil and Drainage
The study area is characterized by predominantly flat, poorly drained soils with slow rates of plant decay. As a result, the development of organic soils and peat is common throughout much of the area. The organic surface layer typically ranges from 1 to 2 metres in thickness. It is underlain by a clay/silt till layer up to 2 metres thick, and a Quaternary till layer up to 5 metres thick. Depth to bedrock ranges from 5 to 12 metres below the surface. Surficial material in the region consists of unstratified post-glacial till interspersed with bedrock outcrops and stratified till. The surficial material in the study area is predominantly silty clay to silt matrix, commonly clast poor with high carbonate content.
4.5 Waterbodies and Watercourses
There are several large rivers in the area, including the Winisk, Ekwan, Attawapiskat, Fishbasket, and the Pineimuta Rivers. There are also some very large lakes, such as Winisk Lake in the northeast part of the study area. There is also a vast network of smaller connected headwater streams, ponds and lakes. Many of these smaller streams are part of open fens. Streams in the region are low gradient and have low velocity flow throughout most of the year. The stream banks are typical of low gradient streams and are well defined by earth, boulders, bedrock outcrops and natural levees.
The study area is situated within the primary Southwestern Hudson Bay watershed (refer to Figure 6.2 – information extracted from the 2017 All-Season Community Road Study). The area includes parts of the Winisk-Coast, Ekwan-
Coast and Attawapiskat-Coast secondary watersheds, and falls within the following three (3) tertiary watersheds:
- Attawapiskat – Pineimuta River, Muketei River, Attawapiskat River;
- Winisk – Fishbasket River, Wapitotem River; and
- Ekwan – Ekwan River.
The Attawapiskat River flows in a generally easterly direction to James Bay, and the Winisk and Ekwan River systems flow north to Hudson Bay (Webequie First Nation, 2020b, p. 76)
5.0 Identification of Known and Potential Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes
5.1 Desktop Review: Summary of Findings
The following provides a summary of the various studies prepared by and/or for Webequie First Nation, Marten Falls First Nation, and Weenusk First Nation that were provided to and reviewed by A.S.I. in order to identify potential built heritage resources (B.H.R.s) and cultural heritage landscapes (C.H.L.s.) These studies provide information on the individual First Nations’ knowledge, traditional practices, and land use. These studies are recent, community-led resources that articulate historical and contemporary uses of the study area and are the authoritative sources regarding the perspective of the individual First Nations of the landscape setting of the proposed undertaking.6
6 It should be noted that the Regional Study Area (R.S.A.) identified in the First Nation studies is larger than the R.S.A. used for the Cultural Heritage Report and includes the quaternary watersheds interacting with the route alternatives.
5.1.1 Webequie First Nation
The following sources of data from Webequie First Nation were reviewed:
- Shapefiles identifying the location of sites and features, provided in February 2021;
- Webequie First Nation On-Reserve Land Use Plan (May 31, 2019);
- Draft Webequie First Nation Community Based Land Use Plan (v. 4.2, March 2019);
- Draft Webequie First Nation Traditional Land and Resource Use Study for the Webequie Service Road (Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2024a), and associated shapefiles;
- Webequie First Nation Indigenous Knowledge Study for the Webequie Supply Road: Interim Report (Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2024b); and
- Shapefiles associated with validation sessions held with Webequie Frist Nation in August 2024.
See Section 3.2 for more information on Webequie First Nation.
The Webequie First Nation On-Reserve Land Use Plan (May 31, 2019) provides information and guidance for community land use and development projects. Section 4.2 of the Land Use Plan identifies a number of “Known Culturally
Sensitive Areas” within the boundary of the Webequie First Nation reserve, and
identifies important cultural areas as:
- Sites identified as important traditional use, historic, or cultural significant areas through pre-planning input from members, families, and elders;
- Registered and/or known archaeological sites;
- Sites identified during pre-development site investigations;
- Sites discovered during site construction.
- Registered and/or known archaeological sites;
A map of Known Culturally Sensitive Areas is presented on page 52 of the report. Known Culturally Sensitive Areas that are located within or intersect with the
Local Study Area (L.S.A.) were identified by Archaeological Services Inc. (A.S.I.) as potential C.H.L.s for the purposes of this Cultural Heritage Report and their approximate location has been mapped below. In some cases, the approximate locations of these sites overlap with more specifically mapped areas provided in the project-related shapefiles shared in 2021 and 2024. In instances of overlap, the shapefile information was used to map the potential C.H.L.s.
The Draft Webequie First Nation Traditional Land and Resource Use Study for the Webequie Service Road (W.F.N. T.L.R.U. Study) and the Webequie First Nation Indigenous Knowledge Study for the Webequie Supply Road: Interim Report (W.F.N.I.K. Study) (Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2024a, 2024b) presents Webequie
First Nation’s knowledge about activities, practices, places, and areas, related to use of traditional resources (Traditional Land and Resource Use), knowledge about the natural environment, accumulated over generations of living on the land (Traditional Ecological Knowledge), and socio-economic information, in relation to the Webequie Supply Road project.7 Through interviews and mapping sessions, “study participants provided spatial information at their discretion about areas of importance, including harvesting areas, cultural sites, areas recommended for protection, and more. Spatial information shared by study participants was digitized as points (e.g., cabins), polygons (e.g., hunting areas) and lines (e.g., travel routes)” (Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2024b, p. 4). This spatial information was shared with A.S.I. in the form of shapefiles.
As noted in the W.F.N.I.K. Study, “due to the ephemeral nature of many Indigenous activities (e.g., spiritual and sacred sites), associated locations may or may not have tangible remains associated with use” (p.47). The W.F.N.I.K. Study provides information on types of features that are of significance to Webequie
7 The Webequie First Nation Indigenous Knowledge Study for the Webequie Supply Road: Interim Report (October 4, 2024), is an updated version of the Draft Webequie First Nation Traditional Land and Resource Use Study for the Webequie Service Road (May 31, 2024)which was drafted following the August and September 2024 validation sessions with Webequie First Nation. All efforts have been made to reference the most recent report (i.e., the Interim Report dated October 4, 2024).
First Nation, which may or may not have tangible remains on the landscape. These include but are not limited to the features listed below. The T.L.R.U. Study should be reviewed for a more detailed and comprehensive description:
- Water (p.36): considered a sacred element with deep spiritual and cultural significance, whether through consumption, honoured in ceremony, or used as transportation
- Areas where rivers or waterbodies are present are seen as highly spiritually important areas
- Harvesting sites associated with hunting, trapping, fishing, plant gathering, and other harvesting (p.47-73)
- Travel and Access (p.75-79): waterways hold historical and current importance to Webequie First Nation as, historically, they were a primary means of transportation and communication. Indigenous communities remain deeply connected with traditionally used waterways for social, economic and cultural purposes.
- Stars were used to navigate the landscape while travelling
- Otter trails were used to navigate the landscape and find their way if they became lost
- Habitation (p.80): includes hunting and trapping cabins, campsites and historic camping areas
- The location of the present-day community on the north end of Eastwood Island was originally a summer gathering site for family groups that occupied and utilized the broad surrounding area throughout the year.
- Cultural, Spiritual, and Ceremonial Sites or Areas (p.80-86): includes historic village sites, occupation sites, burial sites, cultural monuments, and spiritually significant natural areas. They also include traditional meeting sites and named places.
- Cultural Values and Cultural Experience (p.86-90)
The W.F.N.I.K. Study compiles traditional ecological knowledge and traditional land and resource uses identified by Knowledge Holders during studies completed
for various projects, including the Webequie Supply Road. Figure 4 of the W.F.N.
I.K. Study consists of a Heat Map which represents “the density of identified features within the study area, with concentrations varying from low use (shown in blue on the figure), representing 1-5 overlapping features, to high use (shown as red on the figure), representing 11 or more features” (Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2024b, pp. 34–35). The Heat Map indicates a high level of use throughout much of the L.S.A., with lower levels of use at the eastern terminus of the proposed road.
The entire landscape setting within which the proposed Webequie Supply Road is located is of significance to Webequie First Nation: “Study participants stated that “everywhere” surrounding the Webequie reserve and the proposed route for the Webequie Supply Road was important to them and their families for TLRU
[traditional land and resource use]. The community’s hunting, trapping, fishing and habitation areas are tied to specific family groups and clans. These lands were passed down from generation to generation through paternal lines” (Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2024b, p. 47).5.1.2 Marten Falls First Nation
The Marten Falls First Nation Indigenous Knowledge, Land Use and Occupancy Study for the Northern Access Roads – Proposed Webequie Supply Road Project (Marten Falls First Nation, 2024) was reviewed. See Section 3.3.12 for more information on Marten Falls First Nations.
The Marten Falls First Nation’s asserted traditional territory extends into the eastern portion of the proposed Webequie Supply Road study area. A number of valued components were considered as part of the data collection for the Marten Falls First Nation study, four of which were identified and mapped within a 50 km buffer zone of the proposed W.S.R. route. One point of interest was identified within the L.S.A., a historical trail which may have cultural importance because of its historic or current use. The historical trail is located at the eastern-most end of the study area and extends towards the northeast.
5.1.3 Weenusk First Nation
The Draft Weenusk First Nation Existing Conditions Report: Webequie Supply Road Project (MNP LLP, n.d.) was reviewed. See Section 3.3.20 for more information on Weenusk First Nation.
The Existing Conditions Report mapping identifies that Weenusk First Nation caribou hunting and pickerel and walleye fishing areas extend south into Winisk River Provincial Park and part of the Webequie First Nation reserve, including a section of the Webequie Supply Road L.S.A. Transportation uses also extend south in a similar manner. Other harvesting areas, such as trapping, berries and plants, are located north of the Webequie Supply Road study area. Traditional Ecological Knowledge from Weenusk First Nation indicates that the Webequie Supply Road project is located within caribou and moose migration routes. Other sites of significance, such as medicine gathering sites, important sites, burial sites, and family territory are located north of the Webequie Supply Road Local and Regional Study Areas as they are defined in this Cultural Heritage Report.
5.2 Validation of Findings
Indigenous Knowledge (I.K.) information collected for the Webequie Supply Road project is being led by each community (and their selected advisors/consultants/contractors). This includes information gathering, documenting and permission of use, as well as validating. Community validation, which is a requirement by regulators, is described for this project as follows (SNC- Lavalin, 2023):
Community validation is a process for the community and its knowledge holders to verify the accuracy, completeness and sensitivity of the I.K. that has been collected for a project. During I.K. data
collection, the community’s practitioners and/or contractors may meet with community members, especially I.K. holders that participated in the study, to review I.K. collected, to discuss, question, add to the information and verify that the community is comfortable
and confident with the accuracy and completeness of the information presented. Further community validation steps may involve the proponent presenting to the community how it has documented any
I.K. that it has received from the community.
A Memorandum outlining the I.K. collection and validation approach for the Webequie Supply Road Project is found in Appendix B.
In-person sessions were held in August and September 2024 to validate the information presented in the Draft Webequie First Nation Traditional Land Use and Resource Use Study for the Webequie Service Road (Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2024a). Over 28 study participants joined the interview sessions held in Webequie between August 20 to 22, 2024, and 10 participants joined the interview sessions held in Thunder Bay on September 12, 2024. Webequie First Nation Knowledge Holders, Elders and other community members were provided with maps to visualize the data presented in the report to review for accuracy and identify additional information. Interview sessions were also accompanied by a translator, where required (Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2024b, p. 4).
Representatives of A.S.I. were in attendance at the validation sessions held in Webequie to begin discussing the emerging findings of the Cultural Heritage Report based on the desktop research and analysis conducted to date. A focused, in-person validation process with Knowledge Holders at Webequie First Nation should be considered a more appropriate alternative to field survey conducted by a heritage consultant for the identification of potential B.H.Rs and C.H.L.s that may be impacted by the proposed undertaking. As noted in the Webequie First Nation I.K. Study (Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2024b, p. 107): “Through intergenerational teachings and traditions, Webequie First Nation has a unique and expert perspective on how the proposed Webequie Supply Road may affect the lands, waters, air, climate and weather, wildlife, fish and vegetation, in the region.”
5.3 Identification of Known and Potential Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes
Based on the results of the background research, including a review of I.K. studies prepared by First Nations and supported by the validation sessions with Webequie First Nation, A.S.I. has identified three C.H.L.s within the study area.
Each C.H.L. includes sites and areas that are located within and/or intersect with the L.S.A., many of which overlap. The C.H.Ls. are delineated based on types of sites and areas identified by Webequie First Nation8 as being important to their community, both historically and today. The study area is located within a landscape of intersecting and interconnected travel routes, harvesting areas and sites, and cultural, spiritual and ceremonial areas and sites.
These areas and sites are generally located with 50 kilometres of the Webequie First Nation community. They are individually mapped and may be considered interrelated C.H.L. units that together form part of a larger Webequie First Nation cultural landscape. The identified areas and sites are physically, historically, contextually, and/or spiritually associated with land use patterns in the District of Kenora and more specifically representative of the ongoing Indigenous traditional practices and settlement patterns of the Webequie First Nation and surrounding area.
As similar types of significant sites and areas will likely be affected by similar types of potential impacts as a result of the proposed Webequie Supply Road, and will require similar mitigative responses, this approach allows for the easier inclusion of additional areas and sites of significance that may be identified by Webequie
8 With the exception of one historical travel route (see C.H.L. 1), all identified sites and areas forming the C.H.L.s were identified by members of Webequie First Nation. Other First Nations may identify additional areas and sites of significance as the Webequie Supply Road project progresses.
First Nation or other First Nations as the Webequie Supply Road project progresses.
Table 1 provides a summary and brief description of the three C.H.L.s and their composite areas and sites, while Figure 5 to Figure 10 map their locations.
T a b l e 1 : I n v e n t o r y S t u d y A r e a
| F e a t u r e I . D . | T y p e | D e s c r i p t i o n |
| C . H . L . 1 | T r a v e l R o u t e s ( L a n d a n d W a t e r – b a s e d ) | C . H . L . 1 p r e s e n t s a n e t w o r k o f t r a v e l r o u t e s i d e n t i f i e d b y W e b e q u i e F i r s t N a t i o n , s e c t i o n s o f w h i c h a r e l o c a t e d w i t h i n o r i n t e r s e c t w i t h t h e L . S . A . V a r i o u s s e g m e n t s h a v e b e e n i d e n t i f i e d a s t r a i l s , h i s t o r i c a l t r a v e l r o u t e s , t r a p p i n g r o u t e s , m u l t i – p u r p o s e r o u t e s , a n d p o r t a g e s . C . H . L . 1 a l s o i n c l u d e s a n h i s t o r i c a l t r a i l ( a p p r o x i m a t e l o c a t i o n o f t h e t r a i l h a s b e e n m a p p e d ) t h a t h a s b e e n u s e d b y t h e p e o p l e o f M a r t e n F a l l s F i r s t n a t i o n f o r h u n d r e d s o f y e a r s . F o r e x a m p l e , a p a r t i c i p a n t w h o m a p p e d t h e t r a i l n o t e d , “ t h e y h a v e u s e d i t t o v i s i t t h e i r g r a n d m o t h e r i n A t t a w a p i s k a t ” ( M a r t e n F a l l s F i r s t N a t i o n , 2 0 2 4 , p . 3 9 ) . T h i s c u l t u r a l h e r i t a g e l a n d s c a p e u n i t i s o f p o t e n t i a l C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e V a l u e o f I n t e r e s t b a s e d o n c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e f o l l o w i n g ( S t a n t e c C o n s u l t i n g L t d . , 2 0 2 4 b , p . 7 5 ) : W a t e r w a y s h o l d h i s t o r i c a l a n d c u r r e n t i m p o r t a n c e t o W e b e q u i e F i r s t N a t i o nH i s t o r i c a l l y , w a t e r w a y s w e r e a p r i m a r y m e a n s o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n a n d c o m m u n i c a t i o n f o r I n d i g e n o u s P e o p l e s a n d E u r o p e a n s e t t e r s |
| F e a t u r e I . D . | T y p e | D e s c r i p t i o n |
| I n d i g e n o u s c o m m u n i t i e s r e m a i n d e e p l y c o n n e c t e d w i t h t r a d i t i o n a l l y u s e d w a t e r w a y s f o r s o c i a l , e c o n o m i c , a n d c u l t u r a l p u r p o s e sW a t e r w a y s s u c h a s t h e Wahpiidotem ( W a p i t o t e m ) R i v e r , W i n i s k R i v e r a n d W i n i s k L a k e a r e c o n s i d e r e d m o n u m e n t s b y W e b e q u i e F i r s t N a t i o n d u e t o l o n g s t a n d i n g t r a d i t i o n a l a n d h i s t o r i c a l u s e A d d i t i o n a l l y , c o m m u n i t y m e m b e r s n o t e d t h e r e w e r e “ l o t s ” o f s a c r e d p l a c e s a l o n g t h e E k w a n R i v e r . | ||
| C . H . L . 2 | H a r v e s t i n g S i t e s o r A r e a s | C . H . L . 2 p r e s e n t s a n e t w o r k o f h a r v e s t i n g a r e a s a n d s i t e s i d e n t i f i e d b y W e b e q u i e F i r s t N a t i o n i n t h e I.K. Study, w h i c h a r e l o c a t e d w i t h i n a n d / o r |
| i n t e r s e c t w i t h t h e L . S . A . ( S t a n t e c C o n s u l t i n g L t d . , 2 0 2 4 b , p . 4 7 – 7 1 ) . W e b e q u i e | ||
| F i r s t N a t i o n m e m b e r s c o n t i n u e t r a d i t i o n a l p r a c t i c e s , w i t h f i s h i n g , h u n t i n g , | ||
| t r a p p i n g , a n d g a t h e r i n g b e r r i e s , w i l d p l a n t f o o d s , a n d m e d i c i n e s t h e m o s t | ||
| c o m m o n h a r v e s t i n g a c t i v i t i e s . T h e M i n i s t r y o f C i t i z e n s h i p a n d M u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m | ||
| “ C r i t e r i a f o r E v a l u a t i n g P o t e n t i a l f o r B u i l t H e r i t a g e R e s o u r c e s a n d C u l t u r a l | ||
| H e r i t a g e L a n d s c a p e s : A C h e c k l i s t f o r t h e N o n – S p e c i a l i s t ” ( 2 0 1 6 ) e x p l a i n s t h a t | ||
| t r a d i t i o n a l u s e a r e a s c a n h a v e s p e c i a l a s s o c i a t i o n s f o r c o m m u n i t i e s a n d h a v e | ||
| p o t e n t i a l f o r c u l t u r a l h e r i t a g e r e s o u r c e s ( M i n i s t r y o f C i t i z e n s h i p a n d | ||
| M u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m , 2 0 1 6 ) . | ||
| C . H . L . 2 p r e s e n t s t h e f o l l o w i n g a r e a s a n d s i t e s : |
| F e a t u r e I . D . | T y p e | D e s c r i p t i o n |
| H u n t i n g s i t e s , h u n t i n g a r e a s , a n d t r a p p i n g a r e a s t h a t a r e l o c a t e d w i t h i n a n d / o r i n t e r s e c t w i t h t h e L . S . A .F i s h i n g s i t e s a n d f i s h i n g a r e a s t h a t a r e l o c a t e d w i t h i n a n d / o r i n t e r s e c t w i t h t h e L . S . A . B e r r y p i c k i n g a r e a s , f o o d p l a n h a r v e s t i n g a r e a s , w i l d r i c e h a r v e s t i n g a r e a s , m e d i c i n e h a r v e s t i n g a r e a s , a n d s p r i n g w a t e r s i t e s t h a t a r e l o c a t e d w i t h i n a n d / o r i n t e r s e c t w i t h t h e L . S . A . H a b i t a t i o n s i t e s t h a t s u p p o r t h a r v e s t i n g a c t i v i t i e s t h a t a r e l o c a t e d w i t h i n t h e L . S . A . A d d i t i o n a l h a r v e s t i n g a r e a s a n d s i t e s m a y b e i d e n t i f i e d b y W e b e q u i e F i r s t N a t i o n o r o t h e r F i r s t N a t i o n s a s t h e W e b e q u i e S u p p l y R o a d p r o j e c t p r o g r e s s e s . T h e Webequie First Nation I.K. Study p r o v i d e s d e t a i l e d i n f o r m a t i o n o n s p e c i e s o f i m p o r t a n c e a n d h a r v e s t i n g p r a c t i c e s a n d p r e f e r e n c e s . T h e I.K. Study a l s o i d e n t i f i e s w i l d l i f e o b s e r v a t i o n a r e a s a n d m i g r a t i o n r o u t e s t h a t a r e n o t i d e n t i f i e d a s p a r t o f C . H . L . 2 f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h i s r e p o r t . T h i s c u l t u r a l h e r i t a g e l a n d s c a p e u n i t i s o f p o t e n t i a l C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e V a l u e o f I n t e r e s t b a s e d o n c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e f o l l o w i n g ( S t a n t e c C o n s u l t i n g L t d . , 2 0 2 4 b ) : |
| F e a t u r e I . D . | T y p e | D e s c r i p t i o n |
| T h e c o m m u n i t y ’ s h u n t i n g , t r a p p i n g , f i s h i n g a n d h a b i t a t i o n a r e a s a r e t i e d t o s p e c i f i c f a m i l y g r o u p s a n d c l a n s a n d t h e s e l a n d s h a v e b e e n p a s s e d d o w n f r o m g e n e r a t i o n t o g e n e r a t i o n t h r o u g h p a t e r n a l l i n e s H a r v e s t i n g a c t i v i t i e s a r e i m p o r t a n t c u l t u r a l a n d t r a d i t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s t h a t t i e W e b e q u i e F i r s t N a t i o n t o t h e l a n dK n o w l e d g e H o l d e r s s h a r e d t h a t “ i f W e b e q u i e p e o p l e d o n o t h u n t , f i s h , o r t r a p o n t h e i r l a n d s , t r a d i t i o n a l t e a c h i n g s d i c t a t e t h a t w i l d l i f e w i l l d i s a p p e a r f r o m t h e a r e a . ( … ) I f p e o p l e i n t h e c o m m u n i t y a r e n o t o u t o n t h e l a n d s h o w i n g r e s p e c t t o t h e a n i m a l s , ‘ t h e y d o n ’ t c o m e b a c k ’ ” S p e c i f i c t e a c h i n g s a n d c e r e m o n i e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h v a r i o u s h a r v e s t i n g a c t i v i t i e s c o n t i n u e t o b e p a s s e d d o w n t o y o u t h i n t h e c o m m u n i t y | ||
| C . H . L . 3 | C u l t u r a l , S p i r i t u a l , a n d C e r e m o n i a l S i t e s o r A r e a s | C . H . L . 3 p r e s e n t s c u l t u r a l , s p i r i t u a l , a n d c e r e m o n i a l s i t e s o r a r e a s i d e n t i f i e d b y W e b e q u i e F i r s t N a t i o n i n t h e I . K . S t u d y t h a t a r e l o c a t e d w i t h i n a n d / o r i n t e r s e c t w i t h t h e L . S . A . T h e s e t y p e s o f s i t e s m a y i n c l u d e , b u t a r e n o t l i m i t e d t o , h i s t o r i c v i l l a g e s i t e s , o c c u p a t i o n s i t e s , b u r i a l s i t e s , c u l t u r a l m o n u m e n t s , a n d s p i r i t u a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t n a t u r a l a r e a s ( S t a n t e c C o n s u l t i n g L t d . , 2 0 2 4 b , p p . 8 0 – 8 6 ) . C . H . L . 3 p r e s e n t s c u l t u r a l l y s e n s i t i v e a r e a s , c u l t u r a l s i t e s , b u r i a l a r e a a n d l a n g u a g e p o i n t s . A d d i t i o n a l c u l t u r a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t s i t e s m a y b e i d e n t i f i e d b y |
| F e a t u r e I . D . | T y p e | D e s c r i p t i o n |
| W e b e q u i e F i r s t N a t i o n o r o t h e r F i r s t N a t i o n s a s t h e W e b e q u i e S u p p l y R o a d p r o j e c t p r o g r e s s e s . I t s h o u l d b e n o t e d t h a t t h e l o c a t i o n o f s o m e s a c r e d a r e a s w i t h i n t h e c o m m u n i t y ’ s t e r r i t o r y c a n n o t b e s h a r e d w i t h o u t s i d e r s a n d a s s u c h a s s o c i a t e d f e a t u r e m a p p i n g i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a n d n o t e x h a u s t i v e . F o r e x a m p l e : “ O n e E l d e r e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e r e i s a w a t e r f a l l i n a n [ s i c ] h e u s e d t o g o c a r i b o u a n d g o o s e h u n t i n g w h e r e , d u r i n g a s h o r t t i m e o f t h e y e a r i n M a r c h , t h e w a t e r f a l l d r i e s u p a n d a s e r i e s o f p i c t o g r a p h s a r e r e v e a l e d d e p i c t i n g a f a m i l y g o i n g c a r i b o u h u n t i n g . H e s a i d , “ M y g r a n d f a t h e r t o l d m e , ‘ d o n ’ t e v e r t e l l a n y o n e . D o n ’ t e v e r t e a c h i t . D o n ’ t e v e r s p e a k i t . D o n ’ t e v e r b r i n g a n y b o d y h e r e ’ ” ( W e b e q u i e A u g u s t 2 0 2 4 s e s s i o n s ) . T h e s e k i n d s o f l o c a t i o n s m u s t b e k e p t p r i v a t e t o W e b e q u i e F i r s t N a t i o n ( W e b e q u i e A u g u s t 2 0 2 4 s e s s i o n s ) . ” ( S t a n t e c C o n s u l t i n g L t d . , 2 0 2 4 b , p . 8 5 ) . T h i s c u l t u r a l h e r i t a g e l a n d s c a p e u n i t i s o f p o t e n t i a l C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e V a l u e o f I n t e r e s t b a s e d o n c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e f o l l o w i n g ( S t a n t e c C o n s u l t i n g L t d . , 2 0 2 4 b ) : R i v e r s a n d o t h e r w a t e r b o d i e s a r e s p i r i t u a l l y i m p o r t a n t a r e a s t o W e b e q u i e F i r s t N a t i o n , a n d f o r w h i c h t h e y a s s e r t a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o p r o t e c t . S u c h a r e a s i n c l u d e W i n i s k L a k e a n d s u r r o u n d i n g w a t e r s h e d s a n d c h a n n e l s . |
| F e a t u r e I . D . | T y p e | D e s c r i p t i o n |
| W i n i s k L a k e w a s a l s o i d e n t i f i e d a s a n a r e a o f c e r e m o n i a l i m p o r t a n c e .O d o b a s L a k e h a s b e e n i d e n t i f i e d a s a p l a c e f o r c e r e m o n i e s a n d t h e c o m m u n i t y ’ s p o w – w o w s . T h e a r e a n e a r A g g r e g a t e S o u r c e A r e a 4 ( s e e A p p e n d i x A f o r l o c a t i o n o f t h e A g g r e g a t e S o u r c e A r e a s ) h a s b e e n i d e n t i f i e d a s a “ v e r y s a c r e d a r e a ” . S o m e c u l t u r a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t s i t e s a n d a r e a s , i n c l u d i n g n a m e d p l a c e s , a r e r e l a t e d t o s t o r i e s t h a t h a v e b e e n p a s s e d d o w n f r o m g e n e r a t i o n t o g e n e r a t i o n a b o u t t h e l a n d . O n e E l d e r n o t e d t h a t “ h e d o e s n ’ t l i k e t o c a l l t h e m s t o r i e s o r l e g e n d s b e c a u s e h e k n o w s t h e m a s t h e t r u e h i s t o r y o f “ w h o w e w e r e , ” i n t r i n s i c a l l y l i n k i n g W e b e q u i e F i r s t N a t i o n t o t h e l a n d s a n d w a t e r s a r o u n d t h e m ( W e b e q u i e A u g u s t 2 0 2 4 s e s s i o n s ) . ” W e b e q u i e F i r s t N a t i o n d e s c r i b e t h e R i n g o f F i r e r e g i o n a s “ t h e l u n g s o f t h e e a r t h ” w h i c h h o l d s a n i m p o r t a n t s p i r i t u a l v a l u e . |
Figure 5: Location of Travel Routes (C.H.L. 1) in the study area
Figure 6: Location of trapping and hunting areas and sites which form part of the Harvesting Areas and Sites C.H.L. (C.H.L. 2) in the study area
Figure 7: Location of fishing areas and sites which form part of the Harvesting Areas and Sites C.H.L. (C.H.L. 2) in the study area
Figure 8: Location of various plant and spring water harvesting areas and sites which form part of the Harvesting Areas and Sites C.H.L. (C.H.L. 2) in the study area
Figure 9: Location of habitation sites that support harvesting activities which forms part of the Harvesting Areas and Sites C.H.L. (C.H.L. 2) in the study area
Figure 10: Location of culturally significant areas and sites which form part of the Cultural, Spiritual and Ceremonial Areas and Sites C.H.L. (C.H.L. 3) in the study area
5.4 Description of Proposed Undertaking
The following sections provide available information regarding the proposed project undertaking and preliminary analysis of its potential impacts on identified
C.H.L.s and as based on information collected and available to date.
The project consists of the development of an all-season road between the Webequie First Nation community and the Ring of Fire mineral deposit area. It will serve as a supply road to facilitate the year-round movement of supplies, materials, and people from the Webequie First Nation and its airport to existing mineral exploration activities and proposed future mine developments in the McFaulds Lake area. The proposed road right-of-way will necessitate constructing bridges over major waterbody crossings including, from east to west, Winisk Lake, Unnamed Tributary of Winisk River, and Muketei River, and a variety of culvert types and sizes will also be placed to convey more minor watercourses under the proposed Supply Road. The project will also include supportive infrastructure such as aggregate pits/quarries, construction camps, and other supportive site facilities located as close as possible to the supply road corridor. The total length of the proposed project corridor, which will include a proposed 35-metre right-of-way, is approximately 107 kilometres. See Appendix A for a map showing the location of project components.
5.5 Preliminary Analysis of Potential Impacts
5.5.1 Potential Impacts on Identified C.H.L.s
For the purposes of this preliminary analysis of potential impacts to potential C.H.L.s, the following is being considered:
- A 35-metre right-of-way following the preliminary recommended preferred route which comprises lands to be cleared and developed for the proposed Supply Road.
- A 25-metre buffer beside the right-of-way which has potential for associated land clearance.
- An additional 250-metre buffer comprising an area where land clearance is unlikely to occur, but where impacts to B.H.R.s and C.H.L.s may be experienced.
This approach is consistent with Ontario Ministry of Transportation’s Environmental Guide for Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes (2007), which is of relevance to this project. It considers three zones defined as “all lands to be affected adversely either through displacement and/or distribution by the proposed highway design and construction within the existing and proposed highway Right-of-Way (R.O.W.) and the off-route zones adjacent or abutting the existing R.O.W.) (Ministry of Transportation, 2007). This report similarly considers potential impacts through a three-tiered understanding of the study area, defined in relation to the type of potential impacts expected: lands to be cleared and developed; additional lands that may be cleared; and lands that are not expected to be cleared but which nonetheless may experience project activities that can impact B.H.R.s and C.H.L.s.
Based on the limited information available, the following is a preliminary summary of potential impacts on identified C.H.L.s and their constituent significant areas and sites:
C.H.L. 1: Travel Routes
- The area of known or potential land clearance associated with the preliminary recommended preferred route and/or associated supportive infrastructure intersects with a number of travel routes and, as such, potential direct adverse impacts are anticipated.
- The proposed construction of bridges and culverts will have direct adverse impacts on the water-based travel routes.
- The additional 250-metre buffer comprising an area where land clearance is unlikely to occur, but where impacts to C.H.L.s may be experienced, also intersects with a number of travel routes and, as such, potential indirect adverse impacts are anticipated.
C.H.L. 2: Harvesting Areas and Sites – Hunting and Trapping
- The area of known or potential land clearance associated with the preliminary recommended preferred route and/or associated supportive infrastructure intersects with land identified as important for trapping and hunting activities and, as such, potential direct adverse impacts are anticipated.
- The additional 250-metre buffer comprising an area where land clearance is unlikely to occur, but where impacts to C.H.L.s may be experienced, intersects with areas and sites identified as important for trapping and hunting activities, and, as such, potential indirect adverse impacts are anticipated.
C.H.L. 2: Harvesting Areas and Sites – Fishing
- The area of known or potential land clearance associated with the preliminary recommended preferred route and/or associated supportive infrastructure intersects with areas and sites identified as important for fishing activities, and, as such, potential direct adverse impacts are anticipated.
- The additional 250-metre buffer comprising an area where land clearance is unlikely to occur, but where impacts to C.H.L.s may be experienced, intersects with areas and sites identified as important for fishing activities, and, as such, potential indirect adverse impacts are anticipated.
C.H.L. 2: Harvesting Areas and Sites – Plant Gathering and Spring Water
- The area of known or potential land clearance associated with the preliminary recommended preferred route and/or associated supportive infrastructure intersects with areas identified as important for berry picking, wild rice harvesting, plant harvesting, medicine harvesting, and spring water collection, and, as such, potential direct adverse impacts are anticipated
- Of note, Aggregate Source Area 4 (see Appendix A for location) is located in an area identified by Webequie First Nation as an
important plant harvesting and spring water collection area. This area is also identified as a culturally sensitive area.
- The additional 250-metre buffer comprising an area where land clearance is unlikely to occur, but where impacts to C.H.L.s may be experienced, intersects with areas identified as important for berry picking, wild rice harvesting, plant gathering, medicine harvesting, and spring water collection, and, as such, potential indirect adverse impacts are anticipated
C.H.L. 2: Harvesting Areas and Sites – Habitation Sites
- Three habitation sites have been identified within the L.S.A., one within the
L.S.A. of the proposed route and two within the L.S.A. of the proposed access road to Aggregate Source Area 4. Of the three habitation sites, one is located within the area of known or potential clearance associated with the preliminary recommended route and another is located within the additional 250-metre buffer comprising an area where land clearance is unlikely to occur, but impacts may be experienced. It should be noted, however, that given the scale of hard copy mapping used as part of interview and validation sessions, cabin locations may not be precise.
C.H.L. 3: Cultural, Spiritual and Ceremonial Areas and Sites
- The area of known or potential land clearance associated with the preliminary recommended preferred route and/or associated supportive infrastructure intersects with areas identified as important culturally sensitive areas and sites, burial area, and language points, and, as such, potential direct adverse impacts are anticipated.
- Of note, Aggregate Source Area 4 (see Appendix A for location) is located in an area identified by Webequie First Nation as a culturally sensitive area. The area is also identified as an important plant harvesting and spring water collection area.
- The additional 250-metre buffer comprising an area where land clearance is unlikely to occur, but where impacts to C.H.L.s may be experienced, intersects with areas identified as important culturally sensitive areas and sites, burial area, and language points, and, as such, potential indirect adverse impacts are anticipated
5.5.2 Other Potential Project-Related Impacts
Potential project-related impacts include both positive and negative impacts. Construction of a new road has the potential to provide improved access to traditional areas and some of the C.H.L.s. identified in this report and, more broadly, the traditional territory of the individual First Nations.
Construction of a new road and associated infrastructure, however, also has the potential to isolate a C.H.L. or heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context, or a significant relationship. Other related adverse effects that may also lead to negative impacts to culturally significant sites may include, but are not limited to: pollution, changes to wildlife habitats, heightened exposure to outsiders and external influences, interference with land use, health and safety risks, loss of connection to the land, impacts to oral history and culture, and other potential negative impacts (Marten Falls First Nation, 2024). Webequie First Nation identified similar potential adverse effects as a result of the proposed Webequie Supply Road (Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2024b).
In regard to potential impacts to Oral History and Culture, Marten Falls First Nation members have identified that blasting techniques used to break up rock formations as part of road construction or related development might negatively impact the homes of the Ma-ma-kwa-se-sak. In Marten Falls First Nation oral history and culture, the Ma-ma-kwa-se-sak are little people who live in the rocks.
Further engagement with the First Nations will assist in determining potential direct and indirect adverse or positive effects on identified C.H.L.s.
6.0 Results, Mitigation Recommendations and Next Steps
The results of background historical research indicate a study area with a terrain dominated by woodlands, wetlands, and watercourses with a human history dating back millennia. Traditional land and resource uses including hunting, fishing, and gathering continue into the twenty-first century by the members Webequie First Nation and other area First Nations. Background research, including a review of federal, provincial, and registers, inventories, and databases, review of historical mapping and secondary sources, and review of available and shared Indigenous Knowledge (I.K.) studies led to the identification of three cultural heritage landscapes (C.H.L.s) by Archaeological Services Inc. (A.S.I.). Each C.H.L. includes sites and areas that are located within and/or intersect with the Local Study Area (L.S.A.), many of which overlap. The C.H.Ls. are delineated based on types of sites and areas identified by Webequie First Nation9 as being important to their community, both historically and today. The study area is located within a landscape of intersecting and interconnected travel routes, harvesting areas and sites, and cultural, spiritual and ceremonial areas and sites.
These areas and sites are generally located with 50 kilometres of the Webequie First Nation community. They are individually mapped and may be considered interrelated C.H.L. units that together form part of a larger Webequie First Nation cultural landscape. The identified areas and sites are physically, historically, contextually, and/or spiritually associated with land use patterns in the District of Kenora and more specifically representative of the ongoing Indigenous traditional practices and settlement patterns of the Webequie First Nation and surrounding area.
9 With the exception of one historical travel route (see C.H.L. 1), all identified sites and areas forming the C.H.L.s were identified by members of Webequie First Nation. Other First Nations may identify additional areas and sites of significance as the Webequie Supply Road project progresses.
As similar types of significant sites and areas will likely be affected by similar types of potential impacts as a result of the proposed Webequie Supply Road, and will require similar mitigative responses, this approach allows for the easier inclusion of additional areas and sites of significance that may be identified by Webequie First Nation or other First Nations as the Webequie Supply Road project progresses.
As noted in the Webequie First Nation I.K. Study, the entire landscape setting within which the proposed Webequie Supply Road is located is of significance to Webequie First Nation: “Study participants stated that “everywhere” surrounding the Webequie reserve and the proposed route for the Webequie Supply Road was important to them and their families for TLRU [traditional land and resource use].
The community’s hunting, trapping, fishing and habitation areas are tied to specific
family groups and clans. These lands were passed down from generation to
generation through paternal lines” (Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2024b, p. 47). Additionally, Webequie First Nation describes the Ring of Fire region as “the lungs of the earth” which holds an important spiritual value: “disturbing this area without stewardship input and knowledge will cause it to become unstable.” (Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2024b, p. 80).
6.1 Recommendations
Based on the results of this assessment, the following recommendations have been developed:
- Further research and engagement with Webequie First Nation and other affected First Nations may provide additional information about the
C.H.L.s currently identified in this report, their composite sites and areas of significance, and their potential cultural heritage value. Additional
C.H.L.s and/or B.H.R.s may also be identified as the project progresses. This information may provide further insights on potential direct and indirect adverse impacts which can better inform the development of appropriate mitigation measures.
Mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to: avoidance, alternative design or construction approaches, monitoring, protection, relocation, remedial landscaping, and documentation, where appropriate. In addition, the following potential mitigation measures have been suggested by Webequie First Nation Elders as part of the Webequie First Nation I.K. Study:
- “One Elder recommended the medicines along the route be
identified before construction begins (Webequie August
2024 sessions)” (Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2024b, p. 70).
- “Participants recommended the use of checkpoints along the roadway to clean equipment and monitor for invasive species, especially regarding micro-organisms and invasive plants carried on boat motors and snowmobiles (Webequie August 2024 sessions)” (Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2024b, p. 70).
- “These sacred areas could be protected by not building the road10, the Elder suggested. However, alternative mitigations might include having spiritual monitors who were trained by Elders in the community on what sites or areas they should monitor (Webequie August 2024 sessions)” (Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2024b, p. 86).
Development of appropriate mitigation measures may require additional studies, such as Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports and/or feature- specific Heritage Impact Assessment reports. In this regard, Webequie First Nation Elders and Knowledge Holders, along with provincial guidelines, should be consulted for advice on scope, methodology and approach, and further heritage work should be undertaken as necessary.
10 This suggestion was provided in relation to the area near Aggregate Source Area 4, which is
identified by the Elder as a “very sacred area”.
- Construction activities and staging should be suitably planned and undertaken to avoid impacts to identified C.H.L.s.
- Should future work require an expansion of the study area then a qualified heritage consultant should be contacted to evaluate the impact of the proposed work on potential heritage resources.
- This draft Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment should be submitted to the Webequie First Nation for review and comment, and to any stakeholders with an interest in the cultural heritage of this project. The draft Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment should also be submitted to the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism for review and comment.
7.0 References
Aird, K., & Fox, G. (2020). Indigenous Living Heritage in Canada. First People’s
Cultural Council; Fox Cultural Research.
Archives of Ontario. (2024a). The Changing Shape of Ontario: The Districts of Northern Ontario. Archives of Ontario.
Archives of Ontario. (2024b). The Changing Shape of Ontario: The Evolution of Ontario’s Boundaries 1774-1912. Archives of Ontario. https://www.archives.gov.on.ca/en/maps/ontario-boundaries.aspx
Brown, J. (1995). On Mortuary Analysis – with Special Reference to the Saxe- Binford Research Program. In L. A. Beck (Ed.), Regional Approaches to Mortuary Analysis (pp. 3–23). Plenum Press.
Canadian Heritage Rivers Board and Technical Planning Committee. (n.d.). The Rivers – Canadian Heritage Rivers System Canada’s National River Conservation Program. Canadian Heritage Rivers System. http://chrs.ca/en/rivers/
Careless, J. M. S. (1993). Ontario: A Celebration of our Heritage. Heritage Publishing House.
Carman, R. A., Buehler, D., Mikesell, S., & Searls, C. L. (2012). Current Practices to Address Construction Vibration and Potential Effects to Historic Buildings Adjacent to Transportation Projects. Wilson, Ihrig and Associates, ICF International, and Simpson, Gumpertz and Heger, Incorporated for the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
Chiefs of Ontario. (2005). Kingfisher Lake First Nation. Chiefs of Ontario. https://web.archive.org/web/20071218095922/http://www.chiefs-of- ontario.org/profiles/pr_kingfisher.html
Chiefs of Ontario. (2024). List of Residential Schools in Ontario. Chiefs of Ontario. https://chiefs-of-ontario.org/priorities/irs-resources/
Conrad, M., Finkel, A., & Fyson, D. (2014). History of the Canadian Peoples: Beginnings to 1867, Vol. 1 (Sixth Edition). Pearson Canada.
Constance Lake First Nation. (n.d.). Constance Lake First Nation: Our History. Constance Lake First Nation. https://constancelake.ca/our-history/
Cooper, M. (2014). Personal Communication with Lawrence Baxter [Personal communication].
Crispino, M., & D’Apuzzo, M. (2001). Measurement and Prediction of Traffic- induced Vibrations in a Heritage Building. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 246(2), 319–335.
Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs. (2016). The James Bay Treaty— Treaty No. 9 (Made in 1905 and 1906) and Adhesions Made in 1929 and 1930.
Treaty Texts – Treaty No. 9. http://www.rcaanc- cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100028863/1100100028864
Cummins, B. D. (1992). Attawapiskat Cree: Land Tenure and Use 1901-1989. McMaster University.
Daniels v. Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development) (Supreme Court of Canada April 14, 2016). https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc- csc/en/item/15858/index.do
Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. (1978). Winisk Lake Sheet 43 D/14
[Map].Department of Mines, W. (1910). Explored Routes on Parts of the Albany, Severn, and Winisk Rivers, etc. Northern Ontario and North West Territories (Map 9a) [Map].
Eabametoong First Nation. (2022). Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eabametoong_First_Nation
Eifler, M. A. (2011). Encyclopedia of the Great Plains: Trade. http://plainshumanities.unl.edu/encyclopedia/doc/egp.na.117.xml
Ellis, C. J., & Deller, D. B. (1990). Paleo-Indians. In C. J. Ellis & N. Ferris (Eds.), The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650 (pp. 37–64). Ontario Archaeological Society Inc.
Ellis, P. (1987). Effects of Traffic Vibration on Historic Buildings. The Science of the Total Environment, 59, 37–45.
Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.O. c. E.18 (1990).
Foster, J. E., & Eccles, W. J. (2013). Fur Trade in Canada. The Canadian Encyclopedia. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/fur-trade
Francis, D. (2018). Winisk River. In The Canadian Encyclopedia. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/winisk-river
Gordon, D. L. (1983). North Caribou Lake Archaeology: Northwestern Ontario. McMaster University.
Greenberg, A., & Morrison, J. (1982). Group Identities in the Boreal Forest: The Origin of the North Ojibwa. Ethnohistory, 29(2), 75–102.
Hamilton, S. (1981). The Archaeology of the Wenesaga Rapids. Archaeology Research Report 17. Archaeology and Heritage Planning Branch, Ministry of Culture and Recreation.
Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. (2020). Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines: Webequie Supply Road Project.
Julig, P. J. (1982). Human Use of the Albany River from Preceramic Times to the Late Eighteenth Century [Master of Arts]. York University, Department of Geography.
Karrow, P. F., & Warner, B. G. (1990). The Geological and Biological Environment for Human Occupation in Southern Ontario. In The Archaeology of Ontario to A.D. 1650 (pp. 5–36). London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society.
Lambert, P. J. (1983). The 1983 Archaeological Survey of Seven Ontario Provincial Parks in the Kenora Region and Assessment of Archaeological Resources in Adjacent Geographic Areas. Park Planning Branch, Environmental Planning Section, Ministry of Natural Resources.
Leslie, J. F. (2016). Treaty 9. The Canadian Encyclopedia. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/treaty-9
Long, J. S. (2010). Treaty No. 9: Making the Agreement to Share the Land in Far Northern Ontario in 1905. McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Long Lake #58 First Nation. (2024). Long Lake #58 First Nation. Long Lake #58 First Nation. https://www.longlake58fn.ca/
Lytwyn, V. P. (1998). Historical Report on the Metis Community at Sault Ste. Marie.
MacDonald, R. I., Robertson, D. S., & Cooper, M. S. (1994). Landbased Archaeological Research in Muskoka. Report of the Master Plan of Archaeological Resources of the District Municipality of Muskoka and the Wahta Mohawks, Volume 1: Background Research, 5–52.
Marten Falls First Nation. (2024). Marten Falls First Nation Indigenous Knowledge, Land Use and Occupancy Study for the Northern Access Roads—Proposed Webequie Supply Road Project.
Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism. (2006a). Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process: Info Sheet #5, Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans. http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/Heritage_Tool_Kit_Heritage_PPS_info Sheet.pdf
Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism. (2010). Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties: Standards & Guidelines.
Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism. (2016). Criteria for Evaluating Potential for Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes, A Checklist for the Non-Specialist.
Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism. (2017). Information Bulletin 3: Heritage Impact Assessments for Provincial Heritage Properties.
Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism. (2022). Criteria for Evaluating Potential for Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes, A Checklist for the Non-Specialist. http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/heritage/tools.shtml
Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism, M. C. M. (2006b). InfoSheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans.
Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism, & Ministry of the Environment. (1992). Guideline for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of Environmental Assessments.
Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks, (MECP). (2021). Winisk River Provincial Park Management Statement. https://www.ontario.ca/page/winisk- river-provincial-park-management-statement
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2024). Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, Under the Planning Act. https://www.ontario.ca/files/2024-08/mmah- provincial-planning-statement-en-2024-08-19.pdf
Ministry of Transportation. (2007, February). Ministry of Transportation Environmental Guide for Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes. http://www.raqsb.mto.gov.on.ca/techpubs/eps.nsf/0/0c286507a82cde53852572d 70059fdf9/$FILE/FINAL_MTO%20Env%20Guide%20BHCHL%20Final%202007%20A
CC.pdf
Mishkeegogamang First Nation. (2010). About—History. Mishkeegogamang Ojibway Nation. https://www.mishkeegogamang.ca/about-history.html
MNC, (Metis National Council). (n.d.). The Metis Nation. The Metis Nation. http://www.metisnation.ca/index.php/who-are-the-metis
MNP LLP. (n.d.). Draft Weenusk First Nation Existing Conditions Report: Webequie Supply Road Project.
Moose Cree First Nation. (2015). A Brief Historic Overview of Moose Factory. http://moosefactorystories.com/history/
National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation. (2024). Ontario Residential Schools. National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation. https://nctr.ca/residential- schools/ontario/
Newton, B. M., & Mountain, J. A. (1980). Gloucester House: A Hudson’s Bay Company Inland Post (1777-1818). In C. S. Reid (Ed.), Northern Ontario Fur Trade Archaeology: Recent Research (pp. 51–94). Historical Planning and Research Branch, Ontario Ministry of Culture and Recreation.
Noront Resources Ltd. (2021). Ring of Fire Geology. Noront Resources Ltd, Exploration. https://norontresources.com/exploration/ring-of-fire-geology/
North Caribou Lake First Nation. (2015). North Caribou Lake First Nation: Community. North Caribou Lake First Nation. http://weagamow.firstnation.ca/community
Ontario Genealogical Society. (n.d.). OGS Cemeteries. Digitals Collections & Library Catalogue. http://vitacollections.ca/ogscollections/2818487/data
Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. c. O.18, [as Amended in 2023] (1990).
Ontario Heritage Trust. (2019, September 30). An Inventory of Ontario Heritage Trust-Owned Properties Across Ontario.
https://www.heritagetrust.on.ca/user_assets/documents/Inventory-of-OHT- owned-properties-ENG-Sep-30-2019-FINAL.pdf
Ontario Heritage Trust. (2023). An Inventory of Provincial Plaques Across Ontario. https://www.heritagetrust.on.ca/user_assets/documents/Inventory-of-provincial- plaques-ENG.pdf
Ontario Heritage Trust. (n.d.a). Easement Properties. Ontario Heritage Trust. https://www.heritagetrust.on.ca/en/property-types/easement-properties
Ontario Heritage Trust. (n.d.b). Ontario Heritage Act Register. https://www.heritagetrust.on.ca/en/pages/tools/ontario-heritage-act-register
Ontario Heritage Trust. (n.d.c). Places of Worship Inventory. Ontario Heritage Trust. https://www.heritagetrust.on.ca/en/places-of-worship/places-of-worship- database
Parker Pearson, M. (1999). The Archaeology of Death and Burial. Texas A&M University Press.
Parks Canada. (n.d.a). Canada’s Historic Places. www.historicplaces.ca
Parks Canada. (n.d.b). Directory of Federal Heritage Designations. https://www.pc.gc.ca/apps/dfhd/search-recherche_eng.aspx
Pilon, J.-L. (1987). Wasahoe Inniou Dahtsuonoasu: Ecological and Cultural Adaptation Along the Severn River in the Hudson Bay Lowlands of Ontario. [Ontario Ministry of Citizenship and Culture, Conservation Archaeology Report, Northwestern Region, Report No. 10. Kenora].
Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 (1990).
Praxis Research Associates. (2005). An Historical Profile of the James Bay Area’s
Mixed European-Indian or Mixed European-Inuit Community.
Prosper, L. (2007). Wherein lies the heritage value? Rethinking the heritage value of cultural landscapes from an Aboriginal perspective. The George Wright Forum, 24(2).
Pugh, D. E. (1971). Winisk River. Background Information Report.
R. v. Powley (Supreme Court of Canada September 19, 2003). https://scc- csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2076/index.do
Rainer, J. H. (1982). Effect of Vibrations on Historic Buildings. The Association for Preservation Technology Bulletin, XIV(1), 2–10.
Rand McNally & Co. (1924). Rand McNally 14×21 Inch Map of Northern Ontario
[Map]. Rand McNally & Company.Randl, C. (2001, July). Preservation Tech Notes: Protecting a Historic Structure during Adjacent Construction. U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service. https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/tech-notes/Tech-Notes- Protection03.pdf
Ray, A. J. (2005). I Have Lived Here Since the World Began: An Illustrated history of
Canada’s Native People. Key Porter Books.
Rogers, E. S., & Smith, D. B. (Eds.). (1994). Aboriginal Ontario: Historical Perspectives on the First Nations. Dundurn Press.
Shibogama First Nations Council. (2024). Communities. Shibogama First Nations Council. https://www.shibogama.on.ca/communities
Sieciechowicz, K. (1986). Northern Ojibwa land tenure. Anthropologica, 28, 187– 202.
Skinner, A. (1911). Notes on the Eastern Cree and Northern Saulteaux
(Anthropological Papers 9). American Museum of Natural History.
SNC-Lavalin. (2023). Webequie Supply Road Project—Indigenous Knowledge Collection and Validation Approach [Memorandum].
Stantec Consulting Ltd. (2024a). Draft Webequie First Nation Traditional Land and Resource Use Study for the Webequie Service Road.
Stantec Consulting Ltd. (2024b). Webequie First Nation Indigenous Knowledge Study for the Webequie Supply Road: Interim Report.
Stone, L. M., & Chaput, D. (1978). History of the Upper Great Lakes. In B. G. Trigger (Ed.), Northeast (pp. 602–609). Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press.
Taylor, G. J. (1971). Northern Ojibwa Communities of the Contact-Traditional Period. Anthropologica, New Series 14(1), 19–30.
Technical Guidance for Assessing Physical and Cultural Heritage or Any Structure, Site or Thing (2015). https://www.canada.ca/en/impact-assessment- agency/services/policy-guidance/technical-guidance-assessing-physical-cultural- heritage-or-structure-site-or-thing.html
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015). Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future: Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. https://ehprnh2mwo3.exactdn.com/wp- content/uploads/2021/01/Executive_Summary_English_Web.pdf
U.N.E.S.C.O. World Heritage Centre. (n.d.). World Heritage List. U.N.E.S.C.O. World Heritage Centre. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/
Vyvyan, R. P. (1980). An Analysis of Archaeological Artefacts from Marten’s Falls Hudson’s Bay Company Post, EjIp-1. In C. S. Reid (Ed.), Northern Ontario Fur Trade Archaeology: Recent Research (pp. 139–188). Historical Planning and Research Branch, Ontario Ministry of Culture and Recreation.
Wabasse, L. (2019). Tommy Yellowhead talks about the founding of Nibinamik. Nibinamik News. https://nibinamik.news.blog/2019/10/03/tommy-yellowhead- talks-about-the-founding-of-nibinamik/
Wapekeka First Nation. (2024). Wapekeka First Nation. Wapekeka First Nation. https://wapekeka.ca/
Wawakapewin First Nation. (2024). About Us. Wawakapewin First Nation. https://wawakapewin.netlify.app/about
Webequie First Nation. (2019a). Webequie First Nation On-Reserve Land Use Plan.
Webequie First Nation. (2019b). Webequie Supply Road Summary of Project Description. (661910).
Webequie First Nation. (2020a). Webequie Supply Road. https://www.supplyroad.ca/
Webequie First Nation. (2020b). Webequie Supply Road Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference (661910).
Webequie First Nation and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. (2019). Draft Webequie First Nation Community Based Land Use Plan (V4.3- March 2019), “Webequie Anishininniwuk Ahki Ohnahchiikaywin.”
Wiss, J. F. (1981). Construction Vibrations; State-of-the-Art. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 107, 167–181.
Wright, J. V. (1999). Late Northwest Interior Culture. In A History of the Native People of Canada: Vol. II (1,000 B.C. to A.D. 500). Canadian Museum of Civilization.
Wright, J. V. (2001). A History of the Native People of Canada Archaeological Survey of Canada: Vol. I. Canadian Museum of Civilization.
Wunnumin Lake First Nation. (n.d.). Wunnumin Lake First Nation. Wunnumin Lake First Nation. https://wunnumin.com/
Project Number: Date:
Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Webequie Supply Road
Webequie First Nation and District of Kenora, Ontario Page 117
Appendix B: Webequie Supply Road Project – Indigenous Knowledge Collection and Validation Approach
Memorandum
| To: | Michael Fox and Heather Swan – Indigenous and Community Engagement (ICE) | Date: | May 3, 2023 |
| Attention: | |||
| From: | Mark Knell and Craig Wallace – SNC-Lavalin | Ref: | 661910 |
| Subject: | Webequie Supply Road Project – Indigenous Knowledge Collection and Validation Approach | ||
Support for Community Validation – How Indigenous Knowledge will be Used and Presented
Indigenous Knowledge (IK) information collected for use in the Webequie Supply Road (WSR) Environmental Assessment/Impact Assessment (EA/IA) will be led by each community (and their selected advisors/consultants/contractors) with respect to gathering, documenting and permission of use, as well as validating any IK. This validation step is a requirement by regulators. Community validation is a process for the community and its knowledge holders to verify the accuracy, completeness and sensitivity of the IK that has been collected for a project. During IK data collection, the community’s practitioners and/or contractors may meet with community members, especially IK holders that participated in the study, to review IK collected, to discuss, question, add to the information and verify that the community is comfortable and confident with the accuracy and completeness of the information presented. Further community validation steps may involve the proponent presenting to the community how it has documented any IK that it has received from the community.
Supporting Development of a Community-Led Approach
Federal Regulatory Guidance
Throughout the EA/IA process, the Project Team will support activities related to collection and community validation of the IK provided by Indigenous communities, consistent with the Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines (TISG) prepared by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC).
Generally, we have noted that the TISG includes the following guidance in relation to IK and community validation:
- Incorporating the factors laid out in subsection 22(1), and in consideration of subsection 18(1.2) of the Impact Assessment Act (IAA), include[es] ensuring incorporation of IK in each technical section;
- As relevant, the alternatives to and alternative means assessments should be informed by …IK;
- The proponent must provide Indigenous groups with an opportunity to…provide IK during baseline data collection;
- The analysis in the Impact Statement must also include consideration of IK provided by Indigenous [communities]. IK where written consent has not been provided by the Indigenous [community(s)] should not be included. Permission from the Indigenous [community] should be sought before including IK in the Impact Statement, regardless of the source of the IK;
- Where and how Indigenous groups’ perspectives and IK and input were integrated in avoiding, mitigating or accommodating identified effects and impacts;
- In describing the biophysical environment, the Impact Statement must take an ecosystem approach that considers how the Project may affect the structure and functioning of biotic and abiotic components within the ecosystem using scientific, community and IK regarding ecosystem health and integrity, as applicable;
- Information sources and data collection methods used for describing the baseline environmental, health, social and economic setting may consist of… IK, including oral histories and knowledge gathered by spending time on the land with knowledge holders;
- The Impact Statement must describe valued components, processes, and interactions that are identified to be of concern…including environmental, cultural, spiritual, historical, health, social, economic, recreational, aesthetic considerations, IK, and their relation to the exercise of Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and Interests;
Spatial boundaries are defined taking into account the appropriate scale and spatial extent of potential effects and impacts of the Project; community knowledge and IK; current or traditional land and resource use by Indigenous groups; exercise of Aboriginal and Treaty rights of Indigenous peoples, including cultural and spiritual practices; and physical, ecological, technical, social, health, economic and cultural considerations;
- Describe how community and IK from relevant populations was used in establishing health baseline conditions, including input from diverse subgroups;
- Describe how community and IK was used in establishing social and economic baseline conditions, including input from diverse subgroups;
- Proponents are required to engage with Indigenous [communities] in developing baseline conditions, in order to identify and understand the potential impacts of their projects on Indigenous peoples, the exercise of Aboriginal and Treaty rights and to incorporate IK into the impact assessment;
- The Impact Statement must indicate where input from Indigenous groups has been incorporated, including IK. To the extent possible, information should be specific to the individual Indigenous community involved in the assessment and describe contextual information about the members within an Indigenous community (e.g., women, men, Elders and youth).
Guiding Principles
As a starting point for discussions with communities, the following principles are proposed in relation to IK, including IK data collection, data management, sharing and confidentiality, and permission to use IK, which are based on a holistic set of principles.1 We note that each community may have their own
1 Based on reference: British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office 2020. Guide to Indigenous Knowledge in Environmental Assessments. Accessed at https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/environmental- assessments/guidance-documents/2018-act/guide_to_indigenous_knowledge_in_eas_v1_-
principles that will be followed, and these principles are intended to add to a respectful dialogue between the Project Team and Indigenous communities.
Respect – IK and western knowledge should be viewed as equally valid ways of knowing. They do not always align or require validation by the other ways of knowing. IK holders should be treated as experts of their communities and with equal respect to the western knowledge advisors. The credentials of the knowledge holders should be validated by their communities, not an external third party.
Relationship Based – Building relationships includes seeking to understand a community’s unique history and traditions, respecting traditional activities (e.g., availability around seasonal practices), and enabling IK to inform how the parties work together throughout the life of the project.
Iterative, Interconnected and Broad Application – IK provided by communities should be part of an ongoing dialogue with community members, with the aim to understand and apply IK across all phases and disciplines of the project.
Acknowledgement of Context – The community should be actively involved in ensuring the context and the meaning of the IK provided is understood and maintained. This is to address the challenge of ensuring meanings are maintained through translation of oral teachings, which may contain spiritual and other cultural elements that may be unfamiliar to the Project team.
Transparency – It is important for the EA/IA process to demonstrate, as transparently as possible, the consideration of IK, while balancing any concerns for confidentiality and ownership of IK by the community.
Ownership and Permission to Use – IK belongs to knowledge holders and their communities. Governance and consultation protocols, community policies and procedures should be well understood when requesting use of IK. Gaining permission is an ongoing process, and permission can be revoked.
First Nations Principles of Ownership, Control, Access and Possession (OCAP) – OCAP principles will be adhered to as the collection, maintenance, and validation of the information shared during engagement is integral to the success of the assignment. OCAP principles support information governance and Indigenous peoples’ right to data sovereignty, managing control over how information is stored, interpreted, validated, used or stored. As the information being shared may be sensitive in nature our facilitation, reporting and data management practices will follow ethical data collection guidelines and ensure all participants are informed about, and consent to, their participation in engagement sessions.
Community-Led Data Collection
As indicated above, it is assumed that Indigenous communities will lead their own IK studies to provide IK to be included and considered in the EA/IA process.
Steps to implement a community-led IKRLU study may include:
- Study planning and coordination
- Complete data sharing agreement with proponent;
- Confirm budget and capacity funding; and
- Develop detailed work plan.
- Review existing information/complete desktop research
- Identify pre-existing sources of IKLRU data;
- Review pre-existing sources of IKLRU data; and
- Document pre-existing sources of IKLRU data.
- Community participant mapping and interviews
- Identify community knowledge holders to be interviewed/engaged; and
- Conduct community mapping and interviews.
- Analysis of results
- Prepare results of IKLRU interview transcripts and mapping; and
- Produce composite spatial data.
- Validation workshop/meetings
- Prepare interview transcripts and circulate to interviewees; and
- Conduct community validation workshop with study participants.
- Reporting
- Prepare draft report;
Review draft report with community representatives and broader community; and
- Finalize report.
- Incorporate IKLRU information into EA/IA
- Community to advise on incorporation of IKLRU information and Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and Interests assessment; and
- Community review and validation of proponent’s incorporation of IKLRU information in EA/IA.
The Project Team will be available to support IKLRU studies as requested, including providing the following for use by communities should they wish:
- Data sharing agreement template;
- Participant informed consent template;
- Sample interview question guides;
- Base map support;
- A study report template.
The community will establish whether data collected from secondary/previously gathered information is applicable, or whether new project-specific information is required to be collected in a new study.
Community Control of Data, Sharing and Confidentiality
The sharing of IK refers to the process of the Indigenous community providing its IK to the Project Team. We anticipate that this could include provision of a report, shapefiles, and possibly a presentation. The Project Team respects community policies, protocols and procedures on sharing information. The process is typically detailed in a data sharing and confidentiality agreement. Data management should
also take into consideration IAAC’s guidance and policy on the protection and confidentiality of IK.2 For example, “[s]ubject to certain exceptions, IK provided in confidence to the Agency, a review panel, the Minister, or a committee established to conduct a regional or strategic assessment cannot be disclosed without written consent”. The protection and confidentiality of IK by IAAC should be well understood, and commitments from IAAC should be sought by the Indigenous community prior to delivering any confidential and non-public data.
Establishing a data sharing and confidentiality agreement between the Indigenous community and the Project Team is a way to clearly present the mutually accepted process details between parties, and legally binding promises that may help build trust. Templates of agreements include details on the process for data receipt, management and protection, use of IK and permission of use. An agreement should be put in place early in a process and modified if needed, as the project progresses.
Sensitive and/or confidential information collected under such an agreement is typically legally protected from public or third-party disclosure as established between the Project team and the Indigenous community participating in the IKLRU Program, prior to the sharing and use of any community information.
Community Validation and Permission of Use of its Information in the EA/IA
Validation sets out the essential steps that enable Indigenous communities to retain ownership and control of the IK being gathered. It involves the review and validation of Indigenous Knowledge data collected as part of community-led studies. Validation is required before the Project team analyzes and integrates IK provided by Indigenous communities into the EA/IA process, including the assessment of impacts to Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and Interests.
The approach to validation may be incorporated into planning by the Indigenous community and its advisors, to the extent desired, and should be developed and implemented by the community. The validation process might be required for pre-existing information collected under a separate process prior to the Project. Alternatively, validation may only be applied to community-led studies conducted as part of the Project.
A workshop of knowledge holders and land users that provided IK may be a useful format for reviewing and validating information provided.
The process of validation of IK is a prerequisite for gaining permission from the knowledge holders, land users, community members and leadership to use the information provided, and how a validation process established and conducted by the community provides a documented process to enable permission to take place. The permission should be tied to the specific document and intended end use of the IK, as presented. Therefore, there should be opportunities for validation at various steps throughout the EA/IA process.
Table 1 summarizes how the community validation approach.
2 https://www.canada.ca/en/impact-assessment-agency/services/policy-guidance/practitioners-guide- impact-assessment-act/protecting-confidential-indigenous-knowledge-under-the-impact-assessment- act.html
Table 1: Community Collection and Validation of IK in the EA/IA Process
| Phase | Activity | General Description | Validation Step |
| IK Collection This is assumed to be led solely by the community (and their advisors/ consultants/ contractors) | 1. Study planning and coordination | Indigenous community and Project team, have dialogue on data sharing agreement with proponent, budget and capacity funding, and work plan. | In keeping with its governance protocols and decision-making process, the Indigenous community engages in study and capacity discussions with the Project team. |
| 2. Community initiates participation | Indigenous community agrees to participate in the IKLRU Program, and to identify knowledge holders that may participate in providing information. | In keeping with its governance protocols and decision-making process, the Indigenous community agrees to collect IK. | |
| 3. Identify knowledge holders | Community identifies knowledge holders to participate in IK gathering. | The community identifies willing participants, regarded as specialists in traditional ways of life of the community. | |
| 4. Gather IK and document the information | IK is gathered by the community from knowledge holders and captured in confidential draft documentation. | Consent (e.g., a signed form or verbal agreement) is administered by the community to acknowledge the privileged nature of the information being shared. | |
| 5. Knowledge holders review of IK gathered (validation) | IK that has been documented, is circulated to knowledge holders that participated in the information gathering, and reviewed individually or in a group format, i.e., workshop, to verify the accuracy of the information. | IK holders are invited by the community to review and comment on draft IK that has been documented. This information could take the format of mapped information, stories, etc. | |
| 6. Confirmation of IK for sharing | Community leadership confirms IK for sharing, following any revisions and additional information received from knowledge holders. | In keeping with community governance protocols, the community confirms IK to be shared, typically following community leadership review. | |
| IK Sharing This is assumed to be led by the community, and supported by the Project Team | 7. Community shares IK with Project Team/Proponent | IK is shared with the Project team for integration into the EA/IA process, including the description of existing baseline conditions, pathways of effects and effects assessment. | Community formally shares IK with Project team, under data sharing and confidentiality agreement. |
| IK Analysis and Permission of Use | 8. IK consideration | In collaboration between the community and the Project team, IK is integrated into | Draft results of IK consideration circulated to |
| This is assumed to involve validation of the Project Team’s documentation by the community | EA/IA documentation, and draft results circulated to the community for review. | the community for review and input. |
| 9. Confirmation of IK for submission | The community grants permission for the use of IK, as presented, in Project documentation. | The community confirms with the Project team the IK that may be used, as presented, in the Project EA/IA. |
| Mark Knell Indigenous Engagement and Impact Assessment Specialist Environment Practice Engineering Services Canada | Wallace Craig Environmental Assessment and Permitting Manager Environment Practice Engineering Services Canada |